Your view on Atheists

[Prime]

See. Actual terrorism. They carried out bombings against people they hate. They KILLED a head of state. And they don't believe in God (after all, it is a part of traditional morality and must be smashed). Now can we stop accusing religion of causing violence? Anyone can be violent no matter what, and can justify any action they do. And every group can have a paramilitary side ready to do harm against anyone who disagree.

But as has been said repeatedly, they were not driven by their belief that there is no god. "The Nihilists were not advocating belief in nothing, they believed in liberating human beings from creeds and practices that are justified by an appeal to objective values." That included all sorts of different aspects of life at the time, and religion is one subset of that.

 

And I'm not implying that religion is causing violence, only that it is often inciting people to violence, because it often has direct commands to do so (or interpreted as such). For example, the following could easily be viewed as calls to violence:

 

(Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.

 

(Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."

 

(Deuteronomy 17) If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

 

(Deuteronomy 13) If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

 

(Mark 7) For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

 

(Luke 19) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

Atheism does not incite violence, because it has no commands at all.

 

Again, you miss the distinction. Atheists who commit violence do not imply that atheism in any way promotes or causes violence.

It certainly can't promote, since there is nothing to promote from.

 

However, many religious texts DIRECTLY COMMAND their followers to commit acts of violence. Further, many people who would normally not commit such acts of violence may be convinced that they must in order to maintain favor with their deity of choice.

Or favor with their family, peers, church, or community.

 

God has been demoted from his holy place to a properganda poster, a symbol like the American flag, and it is done so that it can be used to rally people to back some more underhanded goals.

But how does a religious person tell the difference what is underhanded and what isn't? Are they supposed to make their own moral judgments?

 

Religion is a tool used by people to accomplish their main goals. People are not tools for religions.

I think it is both. It can indeed be a tool with which one can accomplish goals, such as use it to sucker money, obtain followers or power, keep a group in check, etc. But I think people can also be tools for religions if they are used as instruments for religious goals.

 

Other religious people do not. They offer a different interepertion of the same exact religion. It is not the religion that says that you must kill, it is an interpertion of that religion, an interpretion that many people do not actually believe.

But whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong? How does a follower rectify the differences? Is it up to the individual to make their own judgments? Should they listen to their religion's officials? Are they expected to make a moral judgment outside the rules of the religion?

 

Religion is no excuse. People can cry about religion calling on them to kill all they want, it's all a load of crap.

But what is a load of crap? Those passages that imply violence against others (for example some of the above), people who interpret them that way, people being told by the authorities to interpret them that way, or people not using their own moral judgment? Many on the religious side claim that religion defines morals. How do you reconcile then?

 

Ask those who follow religion if we should follow the ways of stoning those to death back in biblical times and the answer would be a resounding no.

Stoning is still commonly practiced as a legal sentence in many parts of the world such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates , sometimes as a part of Sharia religious law.

 

Actually, is that not a case of religion directly inciting people to violence?

 

Those who think anything like this not only take their religion too seriously

I find this to be an interesting statement. How seriously should people take religion? I thought people used it to govern every aspect of their lives. Is that not "taking it seriously?" At what point does it become taking it too seriously?

 

Is it errornous to blame Atheism for Stalin and Mao? If so then it would be equally as errornous to blame religion for Bin Laden.

Why? Why does one not being true prevent the other from being true?

 

The point is, Bin Ladin follows a religion that directly instructs him to commit violence against others. Stalin and Mao as athiests do not have such instructions, because atheism is not a system.

 

We do not chop off the hands of those who shoplift,

Many parts of the world do indeed do such things for religious reasons.

 

though maybe we should, does religion condemn us for not doing so?

Or a more general question, what is more important to the religious, to follow the law or religion?

 

Even if they did the law would state that it is illegal to do so, and people who follow religion have to abide by the law according to their holy texts.

What happens when religion and law are the same?

 

Besides, times have changed.

But presumably religious teachings have not, or have they?

 

Saying that Stalin or Mao were Atheist is offensive, a strawman, ect must mean that bringing up religious wrongdoing must equally be as offensive, a strawman. You cannot have it both ways.

What logic are you using here? It has been pointed out repeatedly why the argument was a strawman. I don't believe you have done the same, or have I missed it?

 

And I don't think anyone said calling Stalin and Mao atheists was offensive...

 

Why do Muslims attack the entire world? They use religion as an excuse but their real reasoning is a lot more simplified, hatred at our success, hatred that we treat women better than goats, hatred that there is action taken against them.

I often see this stated, but what is this argument based on? Our "success" at what? And why would they care how we treat our women if they don't have some belief system that tells them that everyone should treat their women the same as they do?

 

Regardless, like it or not religious fanaticism has not killed as many people as Stalin and Mao. Here's the evidence.

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

We have already been through why these numbers don't prove anything.

 

Are people who follow religion supposed to be killing each other? Should they be trying to wipe out those who do not believe? No they shouldn't, as they are to abide by the law.

But in many places the law is based on or are religious teachings, which often include include directives about getting rid of other religions.

 

What you seem to be implying here is that secular law is needed to keep religion in check to some degree and out of the decision making process for certain aspects of society. Which is of course what many Western countries already do.

 

Saying that Stalin and Mao do not count as Atheists doing wrong

It is worth repeating one last time, no one is denying that they were atheists or that they did terrible, terrible things.

 

because of their style of government is to avoid facing up to the fact they killed those who followed religion because they were so against it.

but they didn't only kill religious people. They killed people from many different types of organizations, such as political, who were a threat to their rule. Stalin actually reopened the churches during WWII. I doubt he would do this if his driving force was to snuff out belief in God.

 

The bottom line is that people who follow religion also must abide by the law. If they do not then not only do they break it they disobey their religion.

How does a religious person rectify those cases where the secular law conflicts with religious doctrine? In such cases, isn't it impossible not to commit a sin? Or are you saying that this never happens?

[SilentScope001]

Oh, and insurgency and terrorism are two different things. Guerrilla warfare against an occupying army is not terrorism.

 

I thought the arugment was over religion or lack of causes violence. I won't even get into the terrorism minefield, but it does not matter if one is doing gurellia warfare or terrorism, you are still committing violence, and violence is supposed to be something Atheists hate, right?

 

You do. However, a lot of people don't, and a lot of those have children that are being trained by an Arabic Mickey Mouse to blow themselves up at the nearest marketplace.

 

The Arabic Mickey Mouse wanted to matyr for land (Palestine). If you happen to not care about land, the Mickey Mouse's repeated shrills seem meaningless.

 

It's no surprise that if one really believes in a god, and really believes that the god wants you to kill, there's a risk he'll do it. After all, what's a life time of jail or execution to a place in Paradise with 72 virgins?

 

Well, that Hadiath (saying of the Prophet) is currently considered "false" by many religious authorities. Meaning it is likely created by someone long after Mohammed bit the dust and therefore Mohammed never actually said that.

 

But who to kill? Wouldn't Muslim soilders in the US Army believe that the way to go to Heaven is to risk their lives killing Osama bin Laden and Taliban forces? After all, you are dying by killing a Non-Beliver (or a Hypocrite) and you are saving countless innocent lives. Problem lies in the fact that it is still up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong.

 

Oh, and what about Aztecs sacrificing their own children atop huge pyramids? Was that motivated by other things than religion, too? Would they have torn out the hearts of innocents even if they did not believe in Quetzalcoatl? Somehow I doubt it. Same goes for abortion clinic bombers and others who, when caught, they always give religious reasons for what they do.

 

Oh great. Well, I'm not an follower of the Aztec religion, and not even Aztecs living today engage in such pratices I'd assume (Aztec people do live in Mexico still, you know). You know, why not ask the persons who believes in the Aztec religion today and tell him that sacrificing is totally wrong, and he'll probraly answer your question more than I can. I'm staying away from that, because I don't know.

 

But, for the "abortion bombing", there has been secular arguments against abortion. Sancity of life and all. So you got your ideology. The person is angry at the ideology losing, and he made the desicion that he must help that ideology out by bombing abortion clinics. He just assumed God is on his side, and used that also as justification.

 

But as has been said repeatedly, they were not driven by their belief that there is no god. "The Nihilists were not advocating belief in nothing, they believed in liberating human beings from creeds and practices that are justified by an appeal to objective values." That included all sorts of different aspects of life at the time, and religion is one subset of that.

 

And I'm not implying that religion is causing violence, only that it is often inciting people to violence, because it often has direct commands to do so (or interpreted as such). For example, the following could easily be viewed as calls to violence:

 

Not a biblical person, but I am a Muslim, so I'll offer my interpretion of the verses:

 

(Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.

 

The point being that if you are making war on Allah and His Messenger, you know, violent, physical warfare, where the other side is killing you, then you are allowed to retailate. A somewhat easy law to understand, and a law that many nations respect.

 

At the time, Mohammed at war with the Quarish, and, well, the Quarish really was a threat to Mohammed. They launched two attacks at his city-state, in an attempt to take him over, and hence this hostile rhetoric.

 

However, the justification of "self-defense" can be used for many different ways and can be used to justify everything and anything. But it is a broad justification that can be used by any group.

 

(Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."

 

Those who disbelieve in this religion and who do evil deeds will go to Hell. I'm blantant, that's what the verse says. In many holy books, you see that those who disbelieve in the other religions meet terrible dooms, and you know this quite well. It's standard boilerplate attempting to persaude people to do good or else they get punished, nothing more.

 

So what? If you use that as an excuse to go and attack your foes now, because you just hate them and want to do chaos and take their property, you stand a chance at being called a disbeliever and being sent to Hell.

 

Neither quotes incite people to do violence, if you have the right interpertion.

 

Atheism does not incite violence, because it has no commands at all.

 

Atheism does have a command. One command: An Atheist must not believe in God, either because he thinks said God does not exist or that there is no evidence that God exist.

 

You cannot have an Atheist that believes in theistic evolution.

 

Though, since atheism is so broad, what about the many different sects and factions within it? Marxism? Materialism? Capitalism? Even that Nihlist faction? Once you go into the factions and dwell into its liteature, I'm sure you can find passages that you can "construe" as inciting violence but the actual followers of said faction do not see it because they see the passages in a different light.

 

But whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong? How does a follower rectify the differences? Is it up to the individual to make their own judgments? Should they listen to their religion's officials? Are they expected to make a moral judgment outside the rules of the religion?

 

The indivudal must make their own judgements. They are not making a moral judgment outside the rules of religion, since they are choosing the very laws of religion they are following, because they are choosing the interpertions and the lens that they view the Holy Books. If you rely on religious experts, then the experts might feud and come up with different views, and again it is up to you to choose what is right and what is wrong.

 

Those who would truly believe in God would surely truly believe in the right interpertion, no? It's just one more hoop...You'll find out if your interpertion is the correct one...later on when it's too late to change it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I thought the argument was over religion or lack of causes violence. I won't even get into the terrorism minefield, but it does not matter if one is doing gurellia warfare or terrorism, you are still committing violence, and violence is supposed to be something Atheists hate, right?

Again, atheism is just the lack of belief in a god, simple as that. So that atheists are 'supposed to' hate violence is a misnomer. Oh, and if atheism did inherently cause people to fight invading Communist armies, I'd consider it a good thing, not a negative, wouldn't you? Weren't the American Minutemen considered heroes? Again, fighting an invading army in self-defense and blowing yourself up in a café are two very different things. Abrahamic faith (as opposed to Hinduism) advocates both, atheism advocates none, nor does it speak against either.

 

Also, fighting an invading army is a rather automatic and natural - most invaded people do it. I don't think Tibetan mythologies are what caused the Tibetan people to do so, which was really what the whole Tibetan detour was about. If anyone had said, 'we'd lay down our arms to the infidel People's Army, but our Lord Shiva the Destroyer demands blood be spilt for Him, and so it shall be!', then it'd have been a different matter.

 

To clarify my stance, though, it's not that religion causes violence, it's that inherently violent religions, as opposed to Hindusim, cause violence.

 

But, for the "abortion bombing", there has been secular arguments against abortion.

But where are the atheistic abortion clinic bombers?

 

Well, that Hadiath (saying of the Prophet) is currently considered "false" by many religious authorities. Meaning it is likely created by someone long after Mohammed bit the dust and therefore Mohammed never actually said that.

Big deal. Lots of passages in both the Bible and Q'uran were written approximately a century after the events they described. Shouldn't most of both books be considered 'false', then?

[Nancy Allen``]

But how does a religious person tell the difference what is underhanded and what isn't? Are they supposed to make their own moral judgments?

 

To some extent yeah. A basic concept of right and wrong would make them see that things such as terrorist acts are wrong, which is something that is taken advantage of in disadvantaged countries as education on what is right and wrong is not something that is taken for granted the way it is in our more civillized world.

 

But whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong? How does a follower rectify the differences? Is it up to the individual to make their own judgments? Should they listen to their religion's officials? Are they expected to make a moral judgment outside the rules of the religion?

 

Again a large part of it would fall on the individual. They can seek advice, even seek advice outside of their religious circle, but ultimatly it falls down to them to decide what is right and what is wrong for them. What is generally considered right and wrong is a big help, which again a lack of such education would be something people take advantage of.

 

But what is a load of crap? Those passages that imply violence against others (for example some of the above), people who interpret them that way, people being told by the authorities to interpret them that way, or people not using their own moral judgment?

 

The latter three. I think there is a diffirence between being told about violence that occured being told to use violence, something that people misinterpret, thinking that because violence was used in this case it means they are entitled to use violence. Also regardless of what religion states the law applies, including the famous 'Though Shalt Not Kill', it says as much in religious text, so acts of violence, abortion clinic bombings for example, is against their religion.

 

Stoning is still commonly practiced as a legal sentence in many parts of the world such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates , sometimes as a part of Sharia religious law.

 

Fair enough. I would counter that this is something that we in the civillized world condemn and rightfully so, not only that but it goes against their religion, not to kill.

 

Actually, is that not a case of religion directly inciting people to violence?

 

I would say that is an example of the bad old days of religion, something that people like Bin Laden want.

 

I find this to be an interesting statement. How seriously should people take religion? I thought people used it to govern every aspect of their lives. Is that not "taking it seriously?" At what point does it become taking it too seriously?

 

That video I put up, where Christians break into the home of a woman who declares herself a witch, burns her posessions and say she should be burning as well, is a good place to start on how far is too far. I would say that people should take every measure to follow religion to the letter in their own lives, in the lives of willing believers, but once they break the law not only do they fall under the prosecution of the justice system they go against their religion, as their religion states that they are to obey the law.

 

Why? Why does one not being true prevent the other from being true?

 

The point is, Bin Ladin follows a religion that directly instructs him to commit violence against others. Stalin and Mao as athiests do not have such instructions, because atheism is not a system.

 

Because if Stalin and Mao weren't Atheist the theists who otherwise were persecuted under their regimes would be alive. If Bin Laden wasn't intolerant of any religion except his own then a lot of Christians, Jews, Atheists ect would still be alive.

 

Many parts of the world do indeed do such things for religious reasons.

 

Again, my take is these are the bad old days that hardline Islamists still hold on to.

 

Or a more general question, what is more important to the religious, to follow the law or religion?

 

You follow your religion to the fullest extent you can under law, which should be easy if your religion forbids breaking the law. Also a bit of respect for others might not go astray, telling people they'll go to hell for not praying five times a day is probably not the best way to portray your beliefs.

 

What happens when religion and law are the same?

 

I think we see that when the majority rule such as government do things such as still carry out capital punishment for minor crimes when the rest of the world had moved on two thousand years ago, or wage war on the basis of religion. Now certainly religion is guilty of it, but argueably so is Atheism.

 

But presumably religious teachings have not, or have they?

 

The trouble is the law makes no distiction on what religious teachings say, and religion states that you are to obay the law.

 

What logic are you using here? It has been pointed out repeatedly why the argument was a strawman. I don't believe you have done the same, or have I missed it?

 

That if it's fine to bring up religious wrongdoing then it must be fine to bring up Atheist wrongdoing as well. If it's not okay to say that Atheists killed people then wouldn't it make it wrong to say religion did as well?

 

I often see this stated, but what is this argument based on? Our "success" at what? And why would they care how we treat our women if they don't have some belief system that tells them that everyone should treat their women the same as they do?

 

What do places such as Afghanistan have that would have compared to the twin towers? Do we have Afghanisburger chains all around the world? What about Britain, America, Japan ect being the world leaders in entertainment? Jealousy. You see the same thing in places like France, people in America are not becoming Frenchifiles, yet America is infiltrating everything in their culture, which they find particularly galling. Now I feel for them, I do, they should be entitled to their identity, but launching terrorist attacks because of it is beyond the pale.

 

But in many places the law is based on or are religious teachings, which often include include directives about getting rid of other religions.

 

Can you give specific examples?

 

What you seem to be implying here is that secular law is needed to keep religion in check to some degree and out of the decision making process for certain aspects of society. Which is of course what many Western countries already do.

 

Exactly, and for a large part law is used to keep religion in check. For example making killing against the law, meaning you cannot kill those who don't follow your religion.

 

How does a religious person rectify those cases where the secular law conflicts with religious doctrine? In such cases, isn't it impossible not to commit a sin? Or are you saying that this never happens?

 

It's a balancing act. Specifically knowing how far in your faith is too far. If your interpretation of it gets in the way of your humanity then there's something wrong with your interpretation.

[Prime]

Not a biblical person, but I am a Muslim, so I'll offer my interpretion of the verses:

 

The point being that if you are making war on Allah and His Messenger, you know, violent, physical warfare, where the other side is killing you, then you are allowed to retailate. A somewhat easy law to understand, and a law that many nations respect.

Thank you for the insight. But how does someone bring physical warfare upon a deity? And striving for corruption implies corrupting followers into not being followers, does it not? I don't see how corruption would imply physically attacking them...

 

Neither quotes incite people to do violence, if you have the right interpertion.

Ah, but that is crux of it! Who determines what is the right interpretation? Who has the moral authority to say that their interpretation is right and another is wrong?

 

But really, that isn't the point. The point is that religion can incite people to violence. We know that there are official interpretations (not sure if that is the right term, but basically interpretations from some authority) that command violence in cases of certain nonviolent sins, such as adultery, stealing, etc.

 

Atheism does have a command. One command: An Atheist must not believe in God, either because he thinks said God does not exist or that there is no evidence that God exist.

Atheism is a definition. It is not a belief system (i.e. a set of rules to follow). You either are an Atheist or you are not. Atheism doesn't demand that you must be one, or that everyone else be one, or that you apply any rules to make decisions. It does not demand that you take any action of any sort. Unlike religion there is nothing about Atheism that can be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a call to violence.

 

You cannot have an Atheist that believes in theistic evolution.

By definition, no.

 

Though, since atheism is so broad, what about the many different sects and factions within it? Marxism? Materialism? Capitalism? Even that Nihlist faction?

You have it backwards. These ideologies are not within or are sects of (i.e. subsets of) Atheism. Atheism is potentially one aspect of those ideologies. If you look these terms in the dictionary, nihilism is the only one that even mentions religion at all.

 

And atheism is not broad. Actually, it couldn't be more specific. You don't believe that there is a deity. The end.

 

Once you go into the factions and dwell into its liteature, I'm sure you can find passages that you can "construe" as inciting violence but the actual followers of said faction do not see it because they see the passages in a different light.

Those ideologies may have literature about such things, but that is not an aspect of atheism. The literature belongs to the ideologies, not to atheism. Again, atheism is only a label on a single belief, that there isn't a deity. Any literature beyond that is outside atheism.

 

Those who would truly believe in God would surely truly believe in the right interpertion, no? It's just one more hoop...You'll find out if your interpertion is the correct one...later on when it's too late to change it.

So it is just a crapshoot guess? Is there only one right answer?

 

Again a large part of it would fall on the individual. They can seek advice, even seek advice outside of their religious circle, but ultimatly it falls down to them to decide what is right and what is wrong for them.

What do you mean, "for them?" Doesn't religion claim that the rules it provides are the only right ones for everyone?

 

Also regardless of what religion states the law applies, including the famous 'Though Shalt Not Kill', it says as much in religious text, so acts of violence, abortion clinic bombings for example, is against their religion.

When you say "religion", perhaps you can be more specific about what religion you actually mean. My impression is that you use it to mean Christian beliefs in NA, not all religions as a group. Otherwise, this statement, for example, is false.

 

I would counter that this is something that we in the civillized world condemn and rightfully so, not only that but it goes against their religion, not to kill.

I assume that you include the US as a part of the civilized world, yet it uses execution as a form of punishment, and many Christians support it because they believe is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. Genesis 9:6 says, "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." And my understanding is that the Catholic church traditionally supports it, and still does in certain cases.

 

I would say that is an example of the bad old days of religion, something that people like Bin Laden want.

But the "bad old days" are the current days, and is still an example of religion inciting people to violence.

 

Because if Stalin and Mao weren't Atheist the theists who otherwise were persecuted under their regimes would be alive.

No, not necessarily. If these same people violated any of the other rules of those ideologies, they would have been killed for those reasons instead.

 

Again, my take is these are the bad old days that hardline Islamists still hold on to.

Yet they do, so their religions incite them to violence. Some Christians believe that corporal punishment is justified based on various Bible passages. Therefore that religion can incite them to violence.

 

Outdated or not, the point is that it does happen today.

 

Also a bit of respect for others might not go astray, telling people they'll go to hell for not praying five times a day is probably not the best way to portray your beliefs.

How about they are going to hell for having sex before marriage, or being gay? Are Christians being disrespectful for the same reasons?

 

I think we see that when the majority rule such as government do things such as still carry out capital punishment for minor crimes when the rest of the world had moved on two thousand years ago

"Minor" crimes? At what point does capital punishment become acceptable based on religious doctrine?

 

wage war on the basis of religion. Now certainly religion is guilty of it, but argueably so is Atheism.

OK, so you concede the point. Religion is used as a reason for violence and can incite violence from its followers. As for atheism, I agree that ideologies that include it have/can, but not atheism itself as I have tried to explain several times.

 

That if it's fine to bring up religious wrongdoing then it must be fine to bring up Atheist wrongdoing as well. If it's not okay to say that Atheists killed people then wouldn't it make it wrong to say religion did as well?

It is ok to say atheists have killed people, but not because they are atheists. The point is the cause. There is nothing about atheism that commands anyone or can be misconstrued to command anyone to do wrong. It is a personal belief that there is no god. That is where it ends. On the other hand, as you have admitted religion can have rules demanding wrongdoing as we would see it. Otherwise, people wouldn't be demanding the death of someone who drew a picture of their deity.

 

What do places such as Afghanistan have that would have compared to the twin towers? Do we have Afghanisburger chains all around the world? What about Britain, America, Japan ect being the world leaders in entertainment? Jealousy.

So they are mad that we have fast food and Tom Cruise? What are you basing this statement on?

 

Can you give specific examples?

I can, but do you not agree that Christian, Muslim, and many other faiths seek to convert the rest of the world to their faiths?

 

Exactly, and for a large part law is used to keep religion in check.

So you are agreeing that the law is required in order to keep religions potentially from inciting violence?

[Achilles]

To some extent yeah. A basic concept of right and wrong would make them see that things such as terrorist acts are wrong, which is something that is taken advantage of in disadvantaged countries as education on what is right and wrong is not something that is taken for granted the way it is in our more civillized world.

Hence the contradiction. You cannot say that these people are not following their religion when their religion tells them to do exactly what it is they are doing. It may very well go against one part of their religious text, but it is also very well supported by another.

 

If it is up to us to decide which action is "true" (or "right and wrong" to use your terms) then why do we need religion for in the first place? If religion is not our moral compass, then what purpose does it serve?

[Nancy Allen``]

What do you mean, "for them?" Doesn't religion claim that the rules it provides are the only right ones for everyone?

 

It also states that people are to follow the law. What I mean is that people might be completely turned off by what they see in religion, or how they see religion portrayed.

 

When you say "religion", perhaps you can be more specific about what religion you actually mean. My impression is that you use it to mean Christian beliefs in NA, not all religions as a group. Otherwise, this statement, for example, is false.

 

I cannot speak for all religions but as far as I know the expectation to obey the law is there. Regardless of what religion you follow however it doesn't give you the right to break the law.

 

I assume that you include the US as a part of the civilized world, yet it uses execution as a form of punishment, and many Christians support it because they believe is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. Genesis 9:6 says, "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." And my understanding is that the Catholic church traditionally supports it, and still does in certain cases.

 

Have you watched The Green Mile? Thankfully the chair is only still in two states I believe, and on the subject of the death penalty, on the one hand it's meant to act as a strong deterrent, but on the other hand bringing religion into it for the church to support it they fall foul of the commandment not to kill.

 

But the "bad old days" are the current days, and is still an example of religion inciting people to violence.

 

By that I mean these people are still holding onto things that the rest of the world had moved on from two thousand years ago. The countries who still do this are largely those who would like to bring about a modern day crusade or Jihad, to kill in the name of their lord.

 

No, not necessarily. If these same people violated any of the other rules of those ideologies, they would have been killed for those reasons instead.

 

What about those whose only crime was religion?

 

Outdated or not, the point is that it does happen today.

 

It shouldn't though, as over the last two thousand years we have matured to see how vile such an act is. Especially given the minority of the crimes people are stoned to death for.

 

How about they are going to hell for having sex before marriage, or being gay? Are Christians being disrespectful for the same reasons?

 

In my opinion yes. I have a book that discusses this, 20 Hot Potatos Christians are Afraid to Touch. It says that nothing can seperate them from God, yeah I know given the way people act about those sin it sounds rich. It also says when discussing gays that those who want to learn about God won't because they feel that Christians would despise them, and their feelings are justified. The way people who follow religion act sometimes scares off people who might otherwise become devout followers. There's also a clear distinction between homosexuality itself (temptation) and homosexual activity (yielding to temptation), the latter being considered wrong. But apparently we are not entitled to vent our moral outrage. It's been said before that we cannot stop people from being stupid, rather we guide them as best we can to make informed choices not to.

 

"Minor" crimes? At what point does capital punishment become acceptable based on religious doctrine?

 

There's been passages posted before explaining when someone is to be put to death. I certainly don't consider it acceptable and I doubt most theists would say that such acts are acceptable today as well. So what would warrent such an act? Today it's murderers and pedophiles, though I wonder if maybe we are killing those who are not considered too dangerous to live? Those who would not be a threat behind bars.

 

So they are mad that we have fast food and Tom Cruise? What are you basing this statement on?

 

Statements from those in the military, social political and ethnic commentators and those who live in other countries. I can provide direct quotes if you like, I'll provide one from Commander Richard Marcinko, who was a Navy SEAL in Vietnam, commanded SEAL Team Two and created and commanded SEAL Team Six and Red Cell. Now I don't have the actual source on me so I'll transcript as best I can.

 

The French have a deep seated resentment for Americans. And why is that? It has to do with their inate feelings of insuperiority. From everything from the Arc De Triumph to the Lavoue to le crosscants the French will tell you, in writing, that the best of everything is French. But while they may have snappy uniforms the fact is they are a second rate power. When was the last time you went down to the Rusty Nail (or your local watering hole) and drank De'portia beer? Yet everything from la Big Mac to la Budweiser to le Levi jeans have been infiltrating their culture, and the French find this particularly...galling. So they react to Americans with resentment. Have you ever been to a French restraunt where the waiters refuse to speak english? Or claim that they do not accept American Express? They had tried to prove their superiority on the world stage as well, often with disasterous results.

 

They had tried to prove it by having their special forces sink the Rainbow Warrior. They were caught in the act too, making them the object of international embaressment.

 

They had tried to prove it by violating treaties on nuclear weapons testing, making them the object of international scorn.

 

And they tried to prove it by using spies who were caught trying to sell industrial secrets.

 

I can, but do you not agree that Christian, Muslim, and many other faiths seek to convert the rest of the world to their faiths?

 

Of course. But there's a world of diffirence between trying to convert others and the 'join us or die' mentality.

 

So you are agreeing that the law is required in order to keep religions potentially from inciting violence?

 

Of course. Not just religion, anybody. The law is to control everyone regardless of what their beliefs are. If there was no law it'd be mob rule for all, Atheists would be killing theists, as well as those who upset them in some way, same for theists, same for those who couldn't give a damn about religion.

 

If it is up to us to decide which action is "true" (or "right and wrong" to use your terms) then why do we need religion for in the first place? If religion is not our moral compass, then what purpose does it serve?

 

For a large part it still is used as a moral compass, except that people look at things such as the command not to kill rather than the command to kill because of x. Also I think this is relevent. Yes yes, another thing from Star Wars, deal with it. Carth said this about the Promised Land.

 

"Sounds like a myth to me. Something to give the people here a false hope to cling to so they don't go mad with despair."

 

Perhaps so, but if religion is a myth unless you are harming others isn't it better than going mad with despair?

[Samuel Dravis]

Regarding Deism and Theism: The distinction between a personal god and a non-personal one seems very much like a distraction to me. In both cases the believer believes in a supernatural cause (namely "gods" or "a god"). I guess I have a hard time understanding why polytheism and monotheism are considered types of theism, yet deism is somehow different. The deist still believes in a god even though the nature of the god is different from the personal god of the monotheist. It seems that this logic, if valid, should extend to the belief in a benevolent personal god as opposed to a malevolent personal god, the myriad of polytheistic gods, etc. See my point?

Yes, I agree. Still, we're just dealing with labels. Their particular relation to other labels doesn't necessarily need to make sense. Some dictionaries define theism in a broader way: "a belief in god(s)." In this case deism would simply be a subcategory of theism, along with the rest: maltheism, eutheism, polytheism, monotheism, etc.

 

Regarding W. Atheism and S. Atheism: Again the distinction seems like a false construct. A = without. Theism = belief in a god or gods. Atheism is being without a belief in a god or gods (this seems to be distinctly different than atheism as a belief that there is no god). It is a neutral state.

 

To make a postive statement about the non-existence of a god or gods is to leave that neutral state. To say that you know there is no god requires that you support such a claim with evidence. Since such a being would have to exist outside our ability to measure him/her/it, then by definition, such evidence could not be possible (since it's existence would then make it part of the natural universe and he/she/it would stripped of his/her/its supernatural status).

 

Since the claim that no god exists cannot be supported, then it logically incorrect to make such a statement. Similarly, to make the claim that god does exist without being able to provide supporting evidence is also logically incorrect.

 

From this starting point, "strong" atheism puts the claimant in an indefensible position since one cannot prove that something does not exist (ala your earlier commentary regarding the space-cheese

 

I am very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.

I do agree with your conclusion. It's unfortunate that the term atheism covers the whole of non-believers because - as you say - it would make more sense if it only covered those who lacked belief. Obviously it causes confusion when someone professes to be an atheist and people take that as if you mean "strong" atheist. I suppose it's not much different than "theistic" can mean anything from a believing in a benevolent god(s) in the sky to the personification(s) of pure evil. Since so many people believe the first, or at least have lots of experience with the "benevolent god" idea, the first impression of someone saying "I'm a theist" conjures the image of that benevolent guy instead of whatever else it could be. This makes it disturbingly simple for atheists, being on the other side of a nice god, to be thought of as non-believers and non-good - after all, if you're not on the good guy's side there's not too many options left. That's unfortunate, because the atheist is probably just as nice as the guy next door (and particularly so if the guy next door happens to be an atheist ).

 

I suppose this ambiguity in the definition of atheist is fairly understandable, though, because (if I remember correctly) "atheist" was originally used as a pejorative, similar to "infidel." Only later did people start taking on the label of their own volition, and as such were stuck with the broad meaning of "any nonbeliever (and particularly one that denounces god)." Thus the introduction of "weak" and "strong" to denote what specific sort of atheist is being talked about.

 

I find the distinction between weak atheists and strong atheists to be virtually equivalent in magnitude to the distinction between the weak atheists and theists. I think I remember that Dawkins said he was a weak atheist, and for good reason - were he a strong atheist the 'arguments' he'd have used would have been ripped apart by everyone.

 

"There are no gods!"

Err, could you show how you got that conclusion, good sir?

"THERE ARE NO GODS!"

That's not really helping. Could you expl-

"THERE ARE NO GODS!!!11!"

 

It would be strangely entertaining if theists jumped on that.

 

Anyway, I don't mean to say that there isn't some overlap between the two versions of atheist. In particular, logical arguments against specific gods and their claimed attributes are perfectly fine for both weak and strong atheists to make. The only thing that can't be done in weak atheism is to categorically deny those hypothetical god's existences.

[SilentScope001]

Um, I'm going to bow out of this discussion due to lack of time. So this will be my last post here, I hope.

===

Again, atheism is just the lack of belief in a god, simple as that. So that atheists are 'supposed to' hate violence is a misnomer. Oh, and if atheism did inherently cause people to fight invading Communist armies, I'd consider it a good thing, not a negative, wouldn't you? Weren't the American Minutemen considered heroes?

 

No. I don't care if a cause is inherently right or wrong, the fact remains that it causes people to die. (History is written by the victors, and had the American Minutemen not won, we would have called them terrorists.)

 

Violence also begets violence, so more people die. Inherently, so what if someone is killing someone for a good or a bad reason? They're dead. And someone is likely to come and kill you back for revenge.

 

I dislike the fact that some people believe that some violence is fine, while other violence is just totally wrong and should be condemned. Violence is violence, and it rarely ends well.

 

Again, fighting an invading army in self-defense and blowing yourself up in a café are two very different things. Abrahamic faith (as opposed to Hinduism) advocates both, atheism advocates none, nor does it speak against either.

 

The Abrhamic faith has never advocated blowing yourself up. Last time I checked, explosives were not commonplace in the territory known as Palestine/Israel and in Saudi Arabia. In fact, all they have advocated in fighting in self-defense. I know Islam bans sucidice, and that some Blue Codes also makes sucidice a capital offense, so if they banned the killing of yourself, which is what a Bomber does, well?

 

The major religions advocate self-defense.

 

Also, fighting an invading army is a rather automatic and natural - most invaded people do it. I don't think Tibetan mythologies are what caused the Tibetan people to do so, which was really what the whole Tibetan detour was about. If anyone had said, 'we'd lay down our arms to the infidel People's Army, but our Lord Shiva the Destroyer demands blood be spilt for Him, and so it shall be!', then it'd have been a different matter.

 

Has ANYONE ever said anything similar to the "We'd lay down our arms" quote? That just sounds like a bad properganda move. Showing any sign of weakness to the enemy is just plain stupid.

 

Especically when you realize each person believes God is on their side. If they want to surrender and stop fighting, then God must also be for surrendering and for stopping fighting, since God is on their side. It happens a lot. Many insurgent groups say that they would love peace, if the enemy side give into their demands, of course. And once those demands are met, then God will obivosuly give blessing for peace, according to their interpertion.

 

To clarify my stance, though, it's not that religion causes violence, it's that inherently violent religions, as opposed to Hindusim, cause violence.

 

And I disagree. The Judeo-Christian religions are not inherently violent, it is the people's interpertions that cause them to go and do violence. If anyone is inherently violent, it is the human race itself.

 

Since this isn't exactly going anywhere, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

But where are the atheistic abortion clinic bombers?

 

The only atheistic pro-lifer I personally know of is Samuel Dravis from this forum. There can be many more atheistic pro-lifers, but the reason none has engage in violence is because it hasn't reached a huge movement yet to attract a fanatic who is predisposed of violence to actually do violence. And just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean it will never happen.

 

Big deal. Lots of passages in both the Bible and Q'uran were written approximately a century after the events they described. Shouldn't most of both books be considered 'false', then?

 

Again, I don't speak for the Bible, but I'd assume they believe that they found all the revelant parts and recorded them down.

 

For the Qu'ran, well, tradition dictated that all of it WAS written down during Mohammed's time as a Prophet. When he said something that was supposed to be a verse from the Qu'ran, it was written down on a leaf or anything and stored for safekeeping and given about to everyone. All those written down verses were compiled into the book known as the Qu'ran.

 

(Mohammed however, according to a Haditah, said that all Haditahs were not to be written down, rather orally passed. He didn't want people mistaking what Mohammed says and does with what Allah says in the Qu'ran. The Haditah was finally written down hunderds of years later. The actual Qu'ran was written though during his time period, must be stressed.)

 

The problem actually became that there were TOO MANY different verisons of the Qu'rans out there. Starting with the first caliph, Abu Bakr, an offical verison of the Qu'ran began to be created...and after the third caliph, Uthman, took over, he finally presided over that offical Qu'ran finally being created and then declared true. (Abu Bakr and Uthman were friends of the Prophet, so they would know what Mohammed said and make sure that the verses were right.) Uthman presided over standarizing how the Qu'ran was assembled, but the Qu'ran was already written down during Mohammed's time.

 

So, yes, you can trust it. I trust it. (There are some Islamic sects that do not trust the Qu'ran, claiming Uthman modified the Qu'ran.)

===

Thank you for the insight. But how does someone bring physical warfare upon a deity? And striving for corruption implies corrupting followers into not being followers, does it not? I don't see how corruption would imply physically attacking them...

 

"Conversion by the sword" is effective, for all ideologies, for all nations, for anyone. If the Quarish marched into Medina and manage to defeat Mohammed's forces, then few people, if any, would believe in Islam. People who would attempt to preach the religion would likely be killed off, and many would easily defect to the other side. In other words, yeah, it is easy to spread corruption by harming the followers.

 

It's impossible to wage warfare against a diety, much less win it. But it is possible to wage war on the followers of said diety.

 

Ah, but that is crux of it! Who determines what is the right interpretation? Who has the moral authority to say that their interpretation is right and another is wrong?

 

God. He made his religon, he should know how to read it correctly. Assuming he exist.

 

Schims and disagreements happen because we are human. Besides, nobody has any true moral authority in a god-less world to decide what is right and wrong anyway for most cases (for a few cases, it might be self-evident, but the world is mostly grey). It's not really that suprising.

 

But really, that isn't the point. The point is that religion can incite people to violence. We know that there are official interpretations (not sure if that is the right term, but basically interpretations from some authority) that command violence in cases of certain nonviolent sins, such as adultery, stealing, etc.

 

There are no offical interpertions in religion however, thanks to sects. The Shias are a bit unified, and compose of about 10% of all Muslims. Even they have preists who disagree with each other. The Sunni "sect" isn't really a sect as much as it is the majority of Muslims who idenitfy themselves as "Not Shia". There are so many priests in the Sunnis, as well as sects within there, and they all disagree on religious stuff.

 

There are interpertions from some authority that might incite violence. However, for every authority who would incite violence, there is likely to be another interpertion who would believe that violence is totally wrong. Don't forget location and ideological bias as well. Imams who are assimilated into Europe would be more likely to support peace than a Imam in the rural parts of Pakistan and have ties to the Taliban.

 

Overall, religion is not a unified force. It is fractured, disunited, and prone to in-fighting due to the different interpertions, some for war and others for peace. It is essentially a tool used by other parties. If you want to say an interpertion incites violence and is wrong, then that would be good. But you can't blame a whole religion for inciting violence due to one interpertion.

 

Atheism is a definition. It is not a belief system (i.e. a set of rules to follow). You either are an Atheist or you are not. Atheism doesn't demand that you must be one, or that everyone else be one, or that you apply any rules to make decisions. It does not demand that you take any action of any sort. Unlike religion there is nothing about Atheism that can be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a call to violence.

 

Alright, alright.

 

You have it backwards. These ideologies are not within or are sects of (i.e. subsets of) Atheism. Atheism is potentially one aspect of those ideologies. If you look these terms in the dictionary, nihilism is the only one that even mentions religion at all.

 

And atheism is not broad. Actually, it couldn't be more specific. You don't believe that there is a deity. The end.

 

But you just said it was a definition. Because it was a definition, and that atheism has no "guiding prinicples" or anything for that matter, it is far too broad. Many people don't believe there is a deity. But what do those people who don't believe in dieties also believe in? That's what these other groups are.

 

I sometimes feel that these groups are done as trying to say, "Alright, there is no God, now what do we do now with such knowledge?" Hence why I use the term sect. An Marxist who believes that religion is opium of the masses would say that people must abandon the opium and fight the power, for instance.

 

Those ideologies may have literature about such things, but that is not an aspect of atheism. The literature belongs to the ideologies, not to atheism. Again, atheism is only a label on a single belief, that there isn't a deity. Any literature beyond that is outside atheism.

 

It seems that this is all done to dissocate atheists from any ideology that they dislike. While this is a noteworthy goal, which I surely agree with, I also claim that religion does have the problems. Liteature written by one ideology or sect in my religion does not apply to all people who follow that religion, only the adherents of that small sect or ideology.

 

So it is just a crapshoot guess? Is there only one right answer?

 

It really isn't that bad of a guess, since if you really are a good follower of God, you should be able to see the right from the wrong and join up with the correct interpertion. Beliving in God isn't supposed to be easy.

 

But, actually, there is the possiblity of more than one interpertion being correct, or even that all religions in the world are correct (aside from atheism, which many people say may not be a religion, of course). However, it is something I do not personally agree with. And the former leads to problems that is worse than the "crapshoot guess" you believe: Would a pro-life sucidice bomber and a non-violent pro-life priest be able to stand each other in Heaven, for instance?

[Prime]

By that I mean these people are still holding onto things that the rest of the world had moved on from two thousand years ago. The countries who still do this are largely those who would like to bring about a modern day crusade or Jihad, to kill in the name of their lord.

OK. But the claim was that religion is not responsible for inciting anyone to violence. I think we have shown that is has/does.

 

I know you say you are bowing out SilentScope001, but I'll respond in case you decide to come back.

 

People who would attempt to preach the religion would likely be killed off, and many would easily defect to the other side. In other words, yeah, it is easy to spread corruption by harming the followers.

Sure, but that isn't the only way of course. Are you saying that this passage only applies to violent corruption?

 

God. He made his religon, he should know how to read it correctly. Assuming he exist.

Unfortunately you can't ask Him direct questions and get direct answers.

 

Overall, religion is not a unified force. It is fractured, disunited, and prone to in-fighting due to the different interpertions, some for war and others for peace. It is essentially a tool used by other parties. If you want to say an interpertion incites violence and is wrong, then that would be good. But you can't blame a whole religion for inciting violence due to one interpertion.

Ah, a good point, and I concede that. The original thing I was arguing against was the claim that religion does not incite violence. I think we have shown that it can. But what you bring up here is an important distinction.

 

But you just said it was a definition. Because it was a definition, and that atheism has no "guiding prinicples" or anything for that matter, it is far too broad. Many people don't believe there is a deity. But what do those people who don't believe in dieties also believe in? That's what these other groups are.

What I mean is that the definition is very specific in the sense that there is one check to apply. But yes, those who would fall into that group is very broad.

 

It seems that this is all done to dissocate atheists from any ideology that they dislike.

But lets call a spade a spade. The claim was that atheism also incites people to violence, but the examples that were given where not a result of them being atheists. Plus, unlike religion that has doctrine that can be interpreted to incite violence, atheism has no doctrine. Similarly to your sect comment, lets at least point the finger at the right group.

 

if you really are a good follower of God, you should be able to see the right from the wrong and join up with the correct interpertion. Beliving in God isn't supposed to be easy.

But not just the correct interpretation, but the correct religion. How does someone choose the right one? After all, eternal salvation is at stake.

[ET Warrior]

But you just said it was a definition. Because it was a definition, [...]it is far too broad.

By that logic we also must begin breaking down people who are left handed into sects as well. Just saying that someone is left handed is not very specific, it tells you very little about them, as you're only getting an idea of which hand they use predominantly.

 

In a similar vein, you aren't really learning much about a person by learning that they're an atheist. Really you can only assert that they don't believe in a deity, and any other attempted insights into their persona will be speculative at best.

[Prime]

In a similar vein, you aren't really learning much about a person by learning that they're an atheist. Really you can only assert that they don't believe in a deity, and any other attempted insights into their persona will be speculative at best.

ET, that is way better put and with less words than I could have done.

[Nancy Allen``]

OK. But the claim was that religion is not responsible for inciting anyone to violence. I think we have shown that is has/does.

 

Star Wars can incite you to violence. Read Sacrifice and see if you don't want to kill someone.

[ET Warrior]

Star Wars can incite you to violence. Read Sacrifice and see if you don't want to kill someone.

I highly doubt a piece of Star Wars fiction would bring about the desire to commit murder, but even if it did it's still not the same, and I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

People who utilize religion as their moral compass will find direct commands that call upon them to commit acts of violence against others. Were there Star Wars texts that called upon true fans to murder non-fans then there would be a correlation.

[Nancy Allen``]

The point is you can point at anything and say that it incites violence. Backmasking records for example, or something that makes violence seem okay. Sure, religion in some people's minds may preach violence, but on the other hand nothing can come through squeaky clean when looked at through the magnifying glass some people use. Nothing. I wonder how well Atheists might come up when so examined, picked over and questioned.

[Prime]

The point is you can point at anything and say that it incites violence.

And our point is that you can't. Not everything is used by people as a, as ET puts it, moral compass. Not everything is put forward by a group of people as a set of universal truths and a set of rules that everyone must follow. And not everything has within those rules commands that can be construed as a call to violence in response to certain behaviors.

 

Backmasking records for example, or something that makes violence seem okay.

We are not saying that religions are the only thing that can do it, but one of the things.

 

Sure, religion in some people's minds may preach violence

That is exactly our point. Nothing more.

 

but on the other hand nothing can come through squeaky clean when looked at through the magnifying glass some people use. Nothing.

Of course some things can. Most things can, actually. Star Wars, for example.

 

I wonder how well Atheists might come up when so examined, picked over and questioned.

Isn't that in part what this whole thread has been about??

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Star Wars can incite you to violence. Read Sacrifice and see if you don't want to kill someone.

Not only is SW fiction and without direct orders to kill, but I doubt you can find someone who has killed because of it. That's the differences.

[Nancy Allen``]

But if religion is fiction as some claim then the same could be said about religious texts.

 

Okay, a better example. Doom influencing people to kill, Grand Theft Auto, these have been said to cause people to commit violent acts, in fact that was exactly the defence someone used, 'Grand Theft Auto made me do it'. Of course these people have the mental capacity of children and I would dare say that those who commit violence based on their religion fare much better, not to mention not only interpret violent acts as how to act but ignore the parts about not being violent and unlawful.

[John Galt]

But if religion is fiction as some claim then the same could be said about religious texts.

 

Okay, a better example. Doom influencing people to kill, Grand Theft Auto, these have been said to cause people to commit violent acts, in fact that was exactly the defence someone used, 'Grand Theft Auto made me do it'. Of course these people have the mental capacity of children and I would dare say that those who commit violence based on their religion fare much better, not to mention not only interpret violent acts as how to act but ignore the parts about not being violent and unlawful.

 

But Grand Theft Auto never specifically told people who play it to go outside and kill anyone. Several religious texts clearly advocate the killing of people by believers for various 'sins,' like disobedience to parents, practicing 'sorcery' (which was most likely a form of Alchemy, a forerunner of modern chemistry), or engaging in homosexuality. There are a few others in the bible in particular that are just as absurd.

[ET Warrior]

But if religion is fiction as some claim then the same could be said about religious texts.

But nowhere does Star Wars tell it's viewers that not only is this a piece of truth, it is a work of divine truth that is the word of god and all who disobey will burn in hellfire for eternity.

[Nancy Allen``]

To which I say people who read this should also read the parts about not killing, obaying the law, ect. The law is supreme, no amount of religious verbs you can dish out allows the breaking of it.

[Prime]

To which I say people who read this should also read the parts about not killing, obaying the law, ect. The law is supreme, no amount of religious verbs you can dish out allows the breaking of it.

In most religions, the law is not supreme. Their religion is. But you are saying that people should obey some religious commands but not others?

[Nancy Allen``]

Certainly not the ones about killing. Just about everywhere you look the command is not to kill, and I would think it's a very simple one.

[Achilles]

But the commandement to kill is equally pervasive. You don't seem to deny this.

 

You choose to place the greater emphasis on the verses that tell you not to kill, and I think that's a very fine thing. However this does not mean that "those other verses" don't exist, or that people aren't telling the truth when they say their killings are justified within the scope of their religious beliefs.

 

This puts the validity of religion in the center of the argument. While it may seem easier to dance around this, that isn't going to make it go away.

[Nancy Allen``]

Since Jesus, when has there been the command to kill? When had Christisans killed? If there is nowhere then it would be safe to say that killing is no longer a part of the dogma.