War vs religion

[nogard]

During my university days I have been so drunk before that I could not stand and battled to form coherent sentences but drunk or not I would never be capable of stabbing someone over a sporting event.

Guess I should have put "good" people. People can appear to be good, but they are not.

I agree with this, it is a possibility. However note that the very fact that some could find another trigger means that they may not and that a reduction in violence in the absence of religion is a possibility. Logic FTW!!

It is also a possibility that violence could increase in the absence of religion

How do you know that those people that do good under religion would not turn into homicidal maniacs without the guidance of the divine?

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

[nogard]

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/w...cide-bombers-0

Excuse my complete lack of understanding, but what part of that article shows that religion causes good people to do bad things? And what part of it shows that it is the only thing to cause good people to bad things.
I see statements like:

It is politics more than religious fanaticism that has led terrorists to blow themselves up.

The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause.

According to her family, her suicide mission was in revenge

The reason why so many of Darnah’s young men had gone to Iraq for suicide missions was not the global jihadi ideology, but an explosive mix of desperation, pride, anger, sense of powerlessness, local tradition of resistance and religious fervor.

[ghoti]

You get politics in religion.... /sigh Politics is the method in which you run something. In this case its religion.

The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause.

Note the term principal cause, as the principal cause is normally something else, but the justification for the reaction to the principal cause is religion.

The reason why so many of Darnah’s young men had gone to Iraq for suicide missions was not the global jihadi ideology, but an explosive mix of desperation, pride, anger, sense of powerlessness, local tradition of resistance and religious fervor.

ok


This discussion reminds me of this.

Please note, I am not implying you are Christian, just that this argument reminds me of such.

Please watch the video

[porchrat]

Guess I should have put "good" people. People can appear to be good, but they are not.

Got to agree. I can say with absolute certainty that I am a happy drunk and no quantity of alcohol is going to change that in any way other than to make me a sleepy drunk

Even in my a drunken state verging on comatose I still find the idea of injuring another human being for any reason other than defence to be absolutely repulsive. People that perform these deeds, even when drunk, need to be separated from the rest of society.

It is also a possibility that violence could increase in the absence of religion

I imagine that could be a possibility yes. Do you now, after all that crazy yesterday about all our answers being off topic, admit that violence could very well decrease in the absence of religion?

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

You forgot the other bit of evidence: that religion can indeed motivate people to do bad things.

[nogard]

...

Congratulations on avoiding the question I asked.

You forgot the other bit of evidence: that religion can indeed motivate people to do bad things.

I am sure I said that already
Oh there it is:

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

I'll also highlight the other parts of that again, just to be complete.

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

There is no evidence to show anything either way other than the fact that people to bad things with or without the motivation of religion. People also do good things with or without the guidance of religion.

[nogard]

These late edits ....

Please watch the video

No. I am still stuck at your proposition which seems to be fallacious.

They would still do it, but religion is the only thing that can make good men and woman commit evil acts joyfully.

[porchrat]

I am sure I said that already
Oh there it is:

I'll also highlight the other parts of that again, just to be complete.

Yea but you are separating the motivations within religion from the bad things and in doing so are implying that people will do bad things regardless of religion. That is implied in the "with or without" part.

[Nanfeishen]

Do you think that had there been no religion on earth, that there would have been less violence?
Or was religion simply the tool used by those who sought dominance through violence, and that other tools would have been used by the same people in the absence of religion?

Religion is just another defining point in the "us" versus "them" list of reasonings exploited by leaders to get people to go to war in the first place.
Its one of many concepts used to exploit the minds of people to create a sense of superiority over others, thereby paving the way for violence.
Once people begin to consider their belief structure, be it, political or racial or religious to be superior to others, you have the potential for violence.

So no, there wouldnt be less violence, only a different agenda or reasoning behind the violence and reasoning for war because unfortunately humankind will never escape from the "us" versus "them" mentality.

[buyeye]

Religion is just another defining point in the "us" versus "them" list of reasonings exploited by leaders to get people to go to war in the first place.
Its one of many concepts used to exploit the minds of people to create a sense of superiority over others, thereby paving the way for violence.
Once people begin to consider their belief structure, be it, political or racial or religious to be superior to others, you have the potential for violence.

So no, there wouldnt be less violence, only a different agenda or reasoning behind the violence and reasoning for war because unfortunately humankind will never escape from the "us" versus "them" mentality.

While I agree with most of your post I have to disagree with the never part.

[Geriatrix]

While I agree with most of your post I have to disagree with the never part.

Maybe elaborate why, then Nanfeishan can debate it with you.

[porchrat]

While I agree with most of your post I have to disagree with the never part.

Don't see how you can disagree. As far as I can see violence is part of our nature. It is part of the nature of many animals... even some plants.

[thestaggy]

While I agree with most of your post I have to disagree with the never part.

Chimpanzees have been recorded making weapons. Some even believe that the migrations out Africa some 1.8 million years ago were in fact due to conflict avoidance. Unambigious weapons are dated to 300,000 years ago and the first deliberate raids on other tribes/social groups can be traced to 200,000 years ago. The first archaelogical evidence of an actual battle dates the battle to 14,340 to 13,140 years ago. In a Nubian cemetery dated as 12,000 years old it was discovered that over half of the individuals found there had succumbed to violent injuries caused by human weapons.

In the book War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage, it is said that 90-95% of all known societies throughout history have been involved in war at some point and the only ones to have not been involved in war were either nomadic - they had the option to flee - or found themselves enclosed within the territory of a much larger/stronger tribe/society/civilisation. Even more telling is that nations/societies/tribes that traded with one other and had frequent contact with one another were in fact more prone to fight one another. So, as the world has gotten smaller the chances & frequency of conflict have increased due to obvious reasons.

We are by default violent and hostile towards one another. Always have been and I doubt it will ever change.