Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Religion generating more violence than games?

31 replies to this topic
Misbegotten cad
  • Misbegotten cad

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#1

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:42 AM

Religious people try to ban videogames claiming such games generate violence in people, and in the community as a whole.

 

Now, I say it is religions that are generating violence!

 

Look here:

1.Most wars are about religious disagreements

2.Religion always generates friction in human relations inside families and in workplaces.

3.Religious people are always arguing with each other, and with the members of other religions.

4.Human rights do not exist inside religious sects.

5.All religions have dogmas that order people to kill the worshippers of other deities.

 

Yep, religions cause a lot of violence and misery in our societies, lot more than videogames ever could.

 

So, instead of banning videogames, we should ban all religions!

 

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

 

Interestingly, this is excactly what John Lennon was preaching, shortly before he was murdered by a religious fanatic.

 

Nuff said, eh?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:57 AM

Religion itself isn't the cause of the violence, but merely a tool used by powerful individuals to motivate others into involving themselves in it.
Holding religion responsible for violence is like holding a car responsible for drunk-driving. It doesn't make very much sense.

In response to your five points:

1) Factually incorrect. Many conflicts have a religious aspect, but they aren't the root cause or even a primary contributor.
2) Subjective, generalist. Money causes friction in human relations inside families and workplaces. People cause friction inside families and workplaces. That's not a justification for banning them.
3) Evidence? Are you honestly claiming that all religious people argue with each other and with other religions about their belief? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for it.
4) You can't apply events in sects to religion as a whole as if they were the same thing, because they're simply not. I could think of numerous non-religious or antitheist sects that the same applies for.
5) Again, incorrect. All major religious schools have sub-sections in which the idea of killing non-believers but that doesn't speak for the entire religion as a whole, and not all religious have dogma.
  • Abel., Irviding, Tyler and 4 others like this

helloworld
  • helloworld

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2011
  • Sweden

#3

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:46 PM Edited by helloworld, 22 February 2014 - 08:50 PM.

So, instead of banning videogames, we should ban all religions!

 

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

They tried that in the soviet union and guess what, it didn't work. Just look at them now with their antigay laws, a result of Christian so-called morality. Just because you ban something doesn't mean it will go away. They tried to ban drugs decades ago and now more people use drugs than ever before,


Flūttershy
  • Flūttershy

    well you got the perfect disguise and you're looking okay

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2013
  • Mars

#4

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:26 AM Edited by rawrsnar, 23 February 2014 - 12:26 AM.

No, people have the right to worship what they want and it is wrong to assume all religious people are warmongering heretics. Besides, one can not simply ban religion.


Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#5

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:34 AM Edited by Nipperkins, 23 February 2014 - 12:34 AM.

 

 

Look here:

1.Most wars are about religious disagreements

No 

2.Religion always generates friction in human relations inside families and in workplaces.

So does any other idea

3.Religious people are always arguing with each other, and with the members of other religions.

So do non religious people

4.Human rights do not exist inside religious sects.

Yes they do

5.All religions have dogmas that order people to kill the worshippers of other deities.

No they don't

 


Average white guy
  • Average white guy

    I love the smell of exhaust fumes on cool, frosty mornings.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#6

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:04 PM Edited by TheGreenSadler, 27 February 2014 - 11:05 PM.

Religious people try to ban videogames claiming such games generate violence in people, and in the community as a whole.

 

Now, I say it is religions that are generating violence!

 

Look here:

1.Most wars are about religious disagreements

No

2.Religion always generates friction in human relations inside families and in workplaces.

No

3.Religious people are always arguing with each other, and with the members of other religions.

Not true at all.

4.Human rights do not exist inside religious sects.

Uh yes they do.

5.All religions have dogmas that order people to kill the worshippers of other deities.

No

So, instead of banning videogames, we should ban all religions!

You cannot ban religion.

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

War would still exist.

War will not go away if you ban religion.

 


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#7

Posted 02 March 2014 - 12:55 PM

 

 

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

 

 

Utterly ridiculous and with no basis in fact. Are you just making up that 90% figure?

 

World War I

World War II

US Civil War

US Revolutionary War

Vietnam War

Korean War

US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Intervention in Libya

 

I could go on for another hour.

 

I'm more curious to know what wars make up this "90% of wars" that would not have happened without religion.

  • Daz and Icarus like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#8

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:56 PM

Although I don't think you'll find many wars where religion is the only motivator (though it is more often than video games, amirite OP?), people thinking that their in-group are the only people on earth that understand the cosmic reality behind the human experience and follow the only divinely correct moral code can't be very conductive to peace. Then you get garbage like Prosperity Gospel...


Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#9

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:33 AM Edited by Iroquois, 23 June 2014 - 02:21 AM.

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

Utterly ridiculous and with no basis in fact. Are you just making up that 90% figure?
 
World War I
World War II
US Civil War
US Revolutionary War
Vietnam War
Korean War
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Intervention in Libya
 
I could go on for another hour.
 
I'm more curious to know what wars make up this "90% of wars" that would not have happened without religion.
Interesting you only mentioned wars that are post-1900's excluding civil and revolutionary. The farther you go back in time, the more religion becomes the main reason for war (considering before the 1900s roughly).

There are errors in both sides of the arguements so far, usually stemming from when ppl use the word all to describe something.

It may not be the cause for all wars but for most of them. Im sure the op wished to include the number of deaths due to heresy and inquistions.

Fast forward to modern times, you have stuff like wako and muslim teachings from quaran. Now before you go and say, wait this is a cult, etc...dont.
Why? Because its all irrelevant.

Deaths in the past from religion were due to moronic rules/laws of practising other or no religions.
Death in cults occur usually from gullibility, "brainwashing" ppl by the work of a bad delusional leader.
Deaths in modern times from like the quaran is due to false teachings.
One of these previous statements may or may not be totally accurate however the reasoning remains the same: Deaths were caused by bad people. It is not from religion directly but is sure 1 hell of a catalyst.

Now religion banning may work technically i mean after all...thats what they did to us ~600 years ago. Why wouldnt the opposite work?

Games on the other hand are not exactly angelic. Maturity is an important factor. Most likely religion will cease within the next couple of 100 years as we become more evolved and have better knowledge in technology and science.

Also, sivispacem, that isnt a great analogy. In case of drunk driving, alcohol is the result of the death( well really poor decision). In case of religion and violence, religion is the cause. It depends on what scale you wish to look at. Overall its poor, immoral decision and bad teacher/teachings.

As long as we make the correct, moral decisions at the end of day, thats all that matters. As an atheist, i can say religion WAS a really messed up notion in the ancient past. In the present, it doesnt affect us (except those knocking jehovahs witnesses hehe...). Cults have taken over as the evil that religion was once in the past. Cults should be monitored, imo. They are usually the death starters nowadays.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#10

Posted 23 June 2014 - 06:16 AM

Also, sivispacem, that isnt a great analogy. In case of drunk driving, alcohol is the result of the death( well really poor decision). In case of religion and violence, religion is the cause. It depends on what scale you wish to look at. Overall its poor, immoral decision and bad teacher/teachings.


No, it's a perfectly adequate analogy once you accept the fact that people aren't really fighting over religious teachings. They're not really fighting over religious interpretation either. I mean, the actual scripture and religious belief aren't the motivating force for violence, but the way that they are used to justify violence or to "sell" violence to those expected to involve themselves in it leads people to associate the religion and the violence as if they were directly causally linked. In reality, they're not; religious is simply a tool that people in positions of power like to use in order to encourage others to do their bidding.

Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#11

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:34 AM Edited by Iroquois, 23 June 2014 - 11:35 AM.

What I meant was that they used to kill each other for the differences in their belief systems. That's where heresy and inquisitions come into play.

"Catholic guy" would ask stranger his religion. If he said something like he is jewish or is an atheist, they would of have guillotined him. Are you saying that is not what the past was like? It was impossible for people with different religions or with no religions to walk the street.

In these cases, it isnt the religious teachings enforcing/commanding/telling to kill that person, it was just merely the opposition of their religion. Most religious teachings used to and still do, teach us right and wrong and how to make moral decisions so that itself cannot be the cause. It was the opposition or lack of a religion that led to religious violence.

It is usually bad incorrect decisions that cause people to kill others. But what was the cause of deaths from heresy and inquisitions? Religion is the answer. It was the driving force. The urge to kill a man because he didnt have the same beliefs as you. If religion never existed, WAY more people would have populated Earth today.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#12

Posted 23 June 2014 - 12:41 PM

You're missing the point; ostensibly the motivation for violence might appear religious but even in antiquity it wasn't. There's nothing inherent in most religious belief that calls on believers to destroy non-believers; in fact it is barely mentioned in scripture. The real reason for societal violence attributed to religion is usually political in nature. You don't destroy the academics for heresy because they aren't believers; you destroy them because their enlightenment is a threat to the monopoly on knowledge that the church, as a political entity, holds.

There isn't a single "religious" conflict or violent event which is anything other than entirely attributable to the desire to hold societal power. There is no real "urge to kill a man for believing differently" other than the one created by pseudo religious entities for the purposes of enhancing their power.
  • Daz likes this

Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Cyclop 9
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None
  • Best Poster [Gaming] 2016
    Best Poster [Gaming] 2015
    Best Poster [Gaming] 2014

#13

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:04 PM

Really the only wars worth fighting are the ones for your freedom and rights. The rest are only ever about power, control and money, in some form or another.

 

Religion is often harnessed as a control mechanism, just as sivis has stated already. I have no problem with religion existing, people should be able to do as they please as long as they do not harm anyone or anything in the process. But people get exploited all the time, and it is a magnificent tool for control which arguably was most likely it's original or early intention.

  • sivispacem likes this

El Tel
  • El Tel

    It's just a ride.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013
  • None

#14

Posted 23 June 2014 - 03:30 PM

Yep, religions cause a lot of violence and misery in our societies, lot more than videogames ever could.

 

So, instead of banning videogames, we should ban all religions!

 

By this logic, perhaps we should also ban science due to the numerous weapons of mass-destruction that it has helped create? Science and religion are just concepts, they have no will or motivation of their own, they are just tools used by humans to explain and/or justify our existence. It's the people who have power and misappropriate religion or science for their own good that are the problem.

 

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

That's because a large portion of the population would have disappeared along with them. Do you think people will happily abandon their faith just because someone implements a ban? The only way you'll get rid of religion at this point is mass-genocide. Sounds really f*cking peaceful.

 

I find it amusing though. You seem to hate how religion is used to cause harm and oppress people, yet you wish to impose a ban on, essentially, freedom of thought. I'm not sure you've thought this through...


igotskiz
  • igotskiz

    Gone to USAF BMT

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2014
  • United-States

#15

Posted 13 July 2014 - 10:51 AM Edited by igotskiz, 13 July 2014 - 10:53 AM.

Religious people try to ban videogames claiming such games generate violence in people, and in the community as a whole.

 
I've yet to see one person try to ban videogames. And if I were, I wouldn't automatically assume religion would be a factor. Child-obesity, procrastination (amirite?), and others are more likely to be reasons instead of "muh beliefs".
 

Now, I say it is religions that are generating violence!

 
You probably say all kinds of things.
 

Look here:

 
No.
 

Yep, religions cause a lot of violence and misery in our societies, lot more than videogames ever could.

 
Back then they did, and in other parts of the world they still do, but not in areas where videogames are concerned.

 

 

It's like you're looking for a reaction, hiding behind all of those exclamation marks and no citations and whatnot.

 

They tried that in the soviet union and guess what, it didn't work.


In OP's defense, the Soviet Union didn't work because of a lack of religion, it was because the wrong people come into power and how they can't get their act together for the betterment of their societies and their peoples.


Aether
  • Aether

    ± Primordial Sky God ±

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2012
  • None

#16

Posted 09 September 2014 - 03:24 AM Edited by zVI Jackal IVz, 09 September 2014 - 03:29 AM.

 

 

 

Just think how peacefull earth would be if we did that!!! 90% of wars would cease if religions disappeared!

 

 

Utterly ridiculous and with no basis in fact. Are you just making up that 90% figure?

 

World War I

World War II

US Civil War

US Revolutionary War

Vietnam War

Korean War

US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Intervention in Libya

 

I could go on for another hour.

 

I'm more curious to know what wars make up this "90% of wars" that would not have happened without religion.

 

I am asking for just a bit of accuracy here, chronologically any series of events after WW2 can not be considered a war. The US congress has not declared war on anyone since WW2. I would also like to state further that any conquests or endeavors taken after WW2 were unconstitutional. (Sorry if I got off topic, please continue)

 

 

 

Nowadays if you want to see the real cause of all current wars... just start investigating the Rothschild dynasty. 

 

One of the root causes of wars for hundreds of years now can be traced back to bankers. Like the Rothschilds.

 

 

Also to the person who stated wars were fought for freedom and rights.. keep in mind that freedom is not something earned. It is given to you at birth due to your very nature and your humanity. 

 

If you think the military's objective currently is to "defend freedom," unless freedom=petrodollar... you might want to do more research.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#17

Posted 09 September 2014 - 07:21 AM

The US congress has not declared war on anyone since WW2.

Which would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that you don't need to declare a war to fight one. "Declarations of war" are a very old concept these days.

Nowadays if you want to see the real cause of all current wars... just start investigating the Rothschild dynasty.

Um, no. Just no.

Also to the person who stated wars were fought for freedom and rights.. keep in mind that freedom is not something earned. It is given to you at birth due to your very nature and your humanity.

You might want to tell that to citizens of despotic states the world over.
 

If you think the military's objective currently is to "defend freedom," unless freedom=petrodollar... you might want to do more research.

If you heeded your own advice and did some "more research", you'd know that the "war for oil" argument is both fallacious in its logic and without any empirical backing.
  • Abel. likes this

Aether
  • Aether

    ± Primordial Sky God ±

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2012
  • None

#18

Posted 09 September 2014 - 05:30 PM Edited by sivispacem, 09 September 2014 - 06:21 PM.

The US congress has not declared war on anyone since WW2.

Which would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that you don't need to declare a war to fight one. "Declarations of war" are a very old concept these days.

Nowadays if you want to see the real cause of all current wars... just start investigating the Rothschild dynasty.

Um, no. Just no.

Also to the person who stated wars were fought for freedom and rights.. keep in mind that freedom is not something earned. It is given to you at birth due to your very nature and your humanity.

You might want to tell that to citizens of despotic states the world over.
 

If you think the military's objective currently is to "defend freedom," unless freedom=petrodollar... you might want to do more research.

If you heeded your own advice and did some "more research", you'd know that the "war for oil" argument is both fallacious in its logic and without any empirical backing.

 
I'm so glad this site has a debates/discussion forum.. alright allow me to kindly respond to these..

"Which would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that you don't need to declare a war to fight one. "Declarations of war" are a very old concept these days."

My response- Declaring war is not a thought that should be considered optional. If a conflict comes about and it requires the military to get involved, congress is required to vote on this and declare war if necessary. If you don't declare war, you can't officially declare an enemy, and if you can't formally declare an enemy then who are you fighting? The is one of the reasons why the US haven't won any wars since WW2. In WW2 we were fighting defined enemy's(Axis Powers). The war was quickly won and finished compared to our military campaigns nowadays.

Now in the last decade+ who has the united states really been fighting? Terrorism? Apparently so, due to our interventions in 1953 we suffer from quite a bit of blowback. We then had 9/11 occur, fast foward to weapons of mass destruction that never existed.. fast forward some more "fighting for democracy..." and now this ISIS thing(due to intervention)... Seems like we've been fighting an idea for the longest time now.. you can't win a war against an idea. It just won't happen.

"Um, no. Just no."

I should elaborate more.. I have to leave soon and I will come back later. So I will go as long as I can with the time I have.

To that^^

As far as I can tell our interventions are not exactly mean't for the purpose of oil, but to get these countries we've invaded enslaved by our failing dollar(which by the way is worth like what? 2% of it's original worth?) It isn't really terrorism we are fighting anymore but to keep these countries trapped with the dollar so these bankers can have their way with them. However these countries still have a "gold standard" as we do not. We simply flushed our gold standard down the toilet. Then to make things worse we place "sanctions" on them(another act of war). At the same our government is spending more of it's inflated dying currency on more military intervention, which probably won't end any time soon because keep in mind, congress has not declared war so technically our governments endeavors are allowed to continue(yet still illegal?). Sorry for the typos, I don't have the time to check.


"You might want to tell that to citizens of despotic states the world over."

^^Give me a plane ticket ha ha :sigh:

Alright, I shall be back later good sir. Have a fine day. I'll attempt to address what I missed later on.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#19

Posted 09 September 2014 - 06:55 PM

My response- Declaring war is not a thought that should be considered optional. If a conflict comes about and it requires the military to get involved, congress is required to vote on this and declare war if necessary. If you don't declare war, you can't officially declare an enemy, and if you can't formally declare an enemy then who are you fighting? The is one of the reasons why the US haven't won any wars since WW2. In WW2 we were fighting defined enemy's(Axis Powers). The war was quickly won and finished compared to our military campaigns nowadays.

The concept of a "declaration of war" hasn't really fitted into the Cold War or post-Cold-War threat landscape. Strictly speaking, it didn't fit into the Second World War's threat landscape seen as many of the participants were subnational groups and organisations which couldn't actually declare war according to the Hague Convention, and nor did some individual nations who were involved in the conflict. In fact, the advent of the UN Charter which seeks to define "just" defensive war and outlaw offensive warfare has basically rendered the entire concept of a "declared war" obsolete. The legal restrictions that apply to nations and dictate when they can fight and how are set out there and enable states to engage in warfare without declaration; in fact, the overwhelming majority of conflicts since 1945 have had no official "declaration of war" and many of those that have had an official statement regarding a state of war have instead declared a "war zone" or "state of conflict", which is legally speaking an entirely separate thing, recognising ongoing but limited military hostilities without the implicit suggestion of an "unlimited" war, as seen in 1914 and 1939, where the entire state apparatus is mobilised in pursuit of total victory.

Similarly, it is not the failure to "declare" wars in contemporary conflict which results in a lack of specificity as to who the combatants are, but the irregular nature of the combatants themselves. International legislation governing the use of force revolves almost solely around the use of force between sovereign states. When you start bringing violent non-state actors into the mix, often with covert or overt support from multiple nation states or groups inside nation states, the you lose the ability to draw meaningful conclusions between what are relatively simple inter-state conflicts which defined warfare pre-1945, and on which the legal basis for warfare in IR rests. Comparing the Second World War to what appear to be fairly "conventional" Cold War era conflicts like Vietnam or the various elements of the Arab-Israeli wars is difficult enough, let alone more modern limited wars.

The reason that WWII was won relatively quickly is twofold. One, the combatants employed their entire economic and industrial infrastructure in the process of making warfare. Effectively the entire global economy and almost every element of sociology and geopolitics was based around violence. Two, the sides engaged in the conflict were relatively clearly defined. We still can't properly define the Viet Cong as a fighting force despite the fact that US involvement in Vietnam ended 40 years ago. Modern counter-insurgency theory suggests and effective pacification ratio of somewhere between 5:1 and 20:1 soldiers to irregular combatants, and that's with a largely neutral population. And it's nigh-on impossible to inflict a "crushing defeat" on an armed force which is both irregular and extensively intertwined with society.
 

Now in the last decade+ who has the united states really been fighting? Terrorism?

Specifically, Takfiri and militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organisations with the strategic endgame of creating a global caliphate. The "war on terror" is a misnomer but the enemy is, theoretically speaking, fairly well defined.
 

Apparently so, due to our interventions in 1953 we suffer from quite a bit of blowback.

I think you've got your wires crossed here. Iran is a Shia-dominated state. The hostility towards the West from them is entirely separate from that of the Sunni Islamist groups. In fact, Sunni extremism is just as much of a threat (and probably moreso) to Iran as it is to the US or Europe. If you'd said US involvement in various despotic regimes in North Africa and Western funding for Israeli during the Arab-Israeli conflict I'd be inclined to agree at least in part.
 

We then had 9/11 occur, fast foward to weapons of mass destruction that never existed..

Except Iraq was never portrayed to be part of the "global war on terror". It was an entirely distinct conflict, executed under a questionable pretext sure, but for which several perfectly legitimate and entirely reasonable pretexts for military intervention did exist; chief amongst which was the reports by UNSCOM that Iraq was violating international treaties put in place in the wake of Desert Storm to prevent them developing or obtaining medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Had that been the justification for invasion (which by all rights it could have been, as it was the same UNSC resolution that was violated as the one violated by the apparent continued development of WMDs) then there would have been little to no legal argument.
 

and now this ISIS thing(due to intervention)

You could equally argue that the rise of IS is a product of a failure to intervene. In 2011 AQI, which formed the basis for ISIS (later IS) was largely broken, the FSA were rallying against Assad's forces in Syria as a fairly heterogeneous group with widespread backing from secularists and moderate Sunnis. It could be argued that the international community turning their back on Syria in the face of grave abuses of international law, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, by the Syrian government forces, was an effective radicalising tool; not only turning once-moderate Sunni fighters towards more extremist and expansionist schools of Sunni Islam and therefore aligning them with the remnants of groups like AQI but also bringing in jihadi fighters from elsewhere.
 

I should elaborate more.

Please do.
 

we've invaded enslaved by our failing dollar(which by the way is worth like what? 2% of it's original worth?)

Now this descends into downright farce. By what metric is the dollar worth 2% of its "original value"? Please explain this.
 

However these countries still have a "gold standard" as we do not.

If you're referring to the idea of pegging currency against the value of precious metal reserves, this has been abandoned across most of the world, primarily because the value of gold et cetera tends to be more volatile than intangible stocks. Zero countries currently use the gold standard as a measure of value.
  • Abel. likes this

Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#20

Posted 28 October 2014 - 11:50 AM Edited by Cyper, 28 October 2014 - 11:52 AM.

Religion itself isn't the cause of the violence, but merely a tool used by powerful individuals to motivate others into involving themselves in it.
Holding religion responsible for violence is like holding a car responsible for drunk-driving. It doesn't make very much sense.

In response to your five points:

1) Factually incorrect. Many conflicts have a religious aspect, but they aren't the root cause or even a primary contributor.
2) Subjective, generalist. Money causes friction in human relations inside families and workplaces. People cause friction inside families and workplaces. That's not a justification for banning them.
3) Evidence? Are you honestly claiming that all religious people argue with each other and with other religions about their belief? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for it.
4) You can't apply events in sects to religion as a whole as if they were the same thing, because they're simply not. I could think of numerous non-religious or antitheist sects that the same applies for.
5) Again, incorrect. All major religious schools have sub-sections in which the idea of killing non-believers but that doesn't speak for the entire religion as a whole, and not all religious have dogma.

 

Religion is based on faith, and faith is not based neither on reason or evidence. That puts the holder of the faith in a position where everything is justified. Once you abandon reason, there is no argument to be had at all, because neither logic nor evidence will matter.

 

Have you ever heard of a superstitious person who can commit a moral act that non-superstitious person can’t commit? Or have you ever heard of a non-superstitious person who can’t commit the same act as a superstitious one? I can tell you: only a person with deep faith will kill witches, blow themselves up, in the name of God, or the paradise, whenever paradise is on earth or heaven.

 

Superstition is very, very dangerous, and even though the majority of average moderate superstitious person not necessary execute homosexuals, do suicide bombings, crusades, rape, torture, fraud, they are still on the road that makes these acts justified, in for example, the name of God.The superstitious idea of a dictator in the sky who set all the rules whom all has to worship and love, who is almighty, the dream of the paradise, the saying that belief without evidence is the greatest virtue out out of all virtues, is one of the world’s most dangerous ideas and they are literally responsible millions of death and long-term suffering in mankinds history - and they are the essence of every religion.


Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#21

Posted 01 November 2014 - 03:01 AM

Religion itself isn't the cause of the violence, but merely a tool used by powerful individuals to motivate others into involving themselves in it.
Holding religion responsible for violence is like holding a car responsible for drunk-driving. It doesn't make very much sense.
In response to your five points:
1) Factually incorrect. Many conflicts have a religious aspect, but they aren't the root cause or even a primary contributor.
2) Subjective, generalist. Money causes friction in human relations inside families and workplaces. People cause friction inside families and workplaces. That's not a justification for banning them.
3) Evidence? Are you honestly claiming that all religious people argue with each other and with other religions about their belief? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for it.
4) You can't apply events in sects to religion as a whole as if they were the same thing, because they're simply not. I could think of numerous non-religious or antitheist sects that the same applies for.
5) Again, incorrect. All major religious schools have sub-sections in which the idea of killing non-believers but that doesn't speak for the entire religion as a whole, and not all religious have dogma.

 
Religion is based on faith, and faith is not based neither on reason or evidence. That puts the holder of the faith in a position where everything is justified. Once you abandon reason, there is no argument to be had at all, because neither logic nor evidence will matter.
 
Have you ever heard of a superstitious person who can commit a moral act that non-superstitious person can’t commit? Or have you ever heard of a non-superstitious person who can’t commit the same act as a superstitious one? I can tell you: only a person with deep faith will kill witches, blow themselves up, in the name of God, or the paradise, whenever paradise is on earth or heaven.
 
Superstition is very, very dangerous, and even though the majority of average moderate superstitious person not necessary execute homosexuals, do suicide bombings, crusades, rape, torture, fraud, they are still on the road that makes these acts justified, in for example, the name of God.The superstitious idea of a dictator in the sky who set all the rules whom all has to worship and love, who is almighty, the dream of the paradise, the saying that belief without evidence is the greatest virtue out out of all virtues, is one of the world’s most dangerous ideas and they are literally responsible millions of death and long-term suffering in mankinds history - and they are the essence of every religion.

Exactly. If religion didnt exist, "they" wouldnt be able to kill in the name of any god as gods wouldnt exist if religion didnt exist. Comparing religion to driving is a bad example sivispacem. In both cases, or for all cases in that matter, no matter what, it always boils down to bad judgement. But on a grander scale, alcohol would be responsible and the car would be a catalyst. In other words, you remove alcohol, you remove all drunk driving related deaths. In the case of religion, religion itself is the catalyst as well as responsible. If you were to erase religion from history, you would erase many deaths along with it.

Like you said sivis, they kill(ed) in the name of God; you take that out of the equation and you have zilch.
Even though in the end, it is due to poor judgement, interpretation, and/or brainwashing (which can be applied to nearly any topic at all concerning killing/morality/crime), on a larger scale, religion is without a doubt, a direct and severe influence on the mortality of people.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#22

Posted 01 November 2014 - 09:07 AM

Exactly. If religion didnt exist, "they" wouldnt be able to kill in the name of any god as gods wouldnt exist if religion didnt exist. Comparing religion to driving is a bad example sivispacem. In both cases, or for all cases in that matter, no matter what, it always boils down to bad judgement. But on a grander scale, alcohol would be responsible and the car would be a catalyst. In other words, you remove alcohol, you remove all drunk driving related deaths. In the case of religion, religion itself is the catalyst as well as responsible. If you were to erase religion from history, you would erase many deaths along with it.

It's not a bad example- in fact, it's a fairly good example based on your summary here, precisely because religion is the catalyst rather than the cause. "Religious" conflicts, or those with apparent religious, aren't fundamentally a conflict between one religious ideology and another. They are almost solely conflicts that are political in their nature- in fact, I challenge you to find a single "religious" conflict which, at its heart, is about anything more than resource control, territory or the subjugation of other peoples. Please don't mistake my comments as a suggestion that religion is entirely innocent in conflicts like this; it serves as a motivating force and driver to engage wider society in the struggle- but generally speaking it isn't a direct cause.

Like you said sivis, they kill(ed) in the name of God; you take that out of the equation and you have zilch.

Except the fact that the people who are actually involved in perpetrating these conflicts- not the individuals fighting but the ones who actually control the setting of operational objective and the underlying strategic plan- know it isn't about religious belief but about territorial conquest or control of resources. Religion is just a tool they use to package it nicely and sell it to the people back home, rather like Nationalism is.

Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#23

Posted 01 November 2014 - 01:27 PM Edited by Iroquois, 01 November 2014 - 01:40 PM.

 

Exactly. If religion didnt exist, "they" wouldnt be able to kill in the name of any god as gods wouldnt exist if religion didnt exist. Comparing religion to driving is a bad example sivispacem. In both cases, or for all cases in that matter, no matter what, it always boils down to bad judgement. But on a grander scale, alcohol would be responsible and the car would be a catalyst. In other words, you remove alcohol, you remove all drunk driving related deaths. In the case of religion, religion itself is the catalyst as well as responsible. If you were to erase religion from history, you would erase many deaths along with it.

It's not a bad example- in fact, it's a fairly good example based on your summary here, precisely because religion is the catalyst rather than the cause. "Religious" conflicts, or those with apparent religious, aren't fundamentally a conflict between one religious ideology and another. They are almost solely conflicts that are political in their nature- in fact, I challenge you to find a single "religious" conflict which, at its heart, is about anything more than resource control, territory or the subjugation of other peoples. Please don't mistake my comments as a suggestion that religion is entirely innocent in conflicts like this; it serves as a motivating force and driver to engage wider society in the struggle- but generally speaking it isn't a direct cause.

Like you said sivis, they kill(ed) in the name of God; you take that out of the equation and you have zilch.

Except the fact that the people who are actually involved in perpetrating these conflicts- not the individuals fighting but the ones who actually control the setting of operational objective and the underlying strategic plan- know it isn't about religious belief but about territorial conquest or control of resources. Religion is just a tool they use to package it nicely and sell it to the people back home, rather like Nationalism is.

 

Like you said, wars are usually/mostly political in nature but religious killings dont necessarily have to be only associated with wars. What about the whole crucification thing (assuming that even happened), or Inquisitions. If you said you didnt believe in their god or any god for that matter, you would be killed right there on the spot. There were centuries dedicated for inquistions. Anything that opposed someones beliefs would be killed. Then of course you have all the other deaths outside the realm of inquisitions too...although a historian professor would probably be able to list such events correctly so I wouldnt know any specific events; but things like inquistions are important. Then of course you have few places in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan (excuse my ignorance if I listed the wrong regions or locations) where people throw acid left and right if you do not follow their beliefs and "teachings". This has been going on since the beginning of time with the people with that specific religion in that area.

 

Ive heard of wars that were due to religious conflicts but none come to mind. Maybe 7 years war??

You then have some cults which utilize religious-style "teachings" to order people to do immoral actions.

If religion is a catalyst, if anything is a catalyst, it should either be removed, nerfed or very closely monitored as it can have a deep, influential effect on people's lives.

This maybe applied to even the "video-gaming leads to murderous teens" thread we have here  in this forum too. There is a very small percentage where the anger leading from video games may push kids or adults over the edge. They are both catalysts.

 

Difference between religion and video games is that religion has done more bad than good (which is ironic considering the intention/purpose of religion) and it has lead to more senseless deaths than from killing sprees that could be somewhat associated with video games.

 

I don't know, it just feels like, religion has never done anyone any good ever. The amount of times Ive heard about religious killings in the news or in history books is just overwhelming. It's just a crazy concept.

 

Im just gonna quote what a wise man once said:

 

"Religion itself isn't the cause of the violence, but merely a tool used by powerful individuals to motivate others into involving themselves in it."

 

If it's a tool, why not remove that tool?

 

If you have deaths from politcal killings or wars

and

you have deaths from religious killings or wars....then

 

If you remove religion, you have reduced the number of deaths, have you not? One less motivational tool? You cannot remove politics as politics run a country. Religion has no significance anymore, some people would argue it did in the past, but I would disagree about that too.


Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#24

Posted 01 November 2014 - 02:41 PM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 01 November 2014 - 02:42 PM.

Crucifixion was a form of execution invented before Christianism so it has nothing to do with religion.

The Inquisition was a judicial institution used to fight heretics for the simple fact that an heretic could challenge the Church's power not only on theological grounds but also on the far more important political ones.

Political power and religious power were one same thing for a lot of centuries hence the use of religion as a mean and as an excuse to persecute whoever was against the status quo.

 

The 7 years war, if you mean the 1756-1763 one fought among Great Britain, France, Spain and others, had absolutely nothing to do with religion. 

 

Even if religion has been one of the causes/excuses in a number of conflicts it was never the single and unique cause/excuse.

You just can't remove religion from history and even if you did nothing assures you that the number of deaths would have decreased.

Religion was also the cause/excuse for most of human art's masterpieces around the globe and throughout history.

So, as all human things, it has a good and a bad side and it is part of our nature.

We could start to remove all things that can be associated to violence in our history and in our present but we wouldn't have the guarantee that violence would disappear.

We'd still have a group of human monkeys throwing stones at another group of human monkeys over a piece of land, a dead animal, a female or a pile of wood.

 

Soviet Union tried to remove religion from every aspect of their citizens' life but it replaced it with ideology and in the end nothing changed.

On top of that, after 70 years of communism, there were still a lot of religious people in Russia.

  • Abel. and sivispacem like this

Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#25

Posted 01 November 2014 - 04:28 PM Edited by Cyper, 01 November 2014 - 04:28 PM.

I would like to clarify that I do not make the bold claim that religion is a direct and the only cause of religious conflicts.

 

To begin with, I am fairly confident to say that religions is made-made. Both the Bible and the Quran is full of contradictions, plagiarism, and factual falsehoods about how the world is constituted. Which is no wonder, because that is the case with all written books, but it sorts of questions the claim that these books are divine, and it do questions the bold statements Islam does about itself. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that religious scriptures has to be put in context because they only reflect the moral views which people had at the time these books were written. This goes well in line with the hypothesis that religion is man-made, it goes well in line with why the pope suddenly has a friendlier attitude towards homosexual people, or how Christianity in Sweden, which once only can be described as a ruthless dictatorship, have been so influenced by the morality that have sprung up not from religion, but from the human being.

 

First off, the danger with religion is the fact that it is that faith is such a virtue. In that way you can justify almost anything because you do not have to think about the probability of events, the fact, the logic, or other people’s feelings. When a person claim absolutely morality then all tries to argue the case is dismissed because the answer is already given.

 

Secondly, a part from faith, I would say that the concept of religion is dangerous. I can’t really give exhaustive definition of it, but many religion is based on ‘Only one God’ and the condemnation of those who think or feels differently. There is a lot of appeal to authority and from history we know what that leads to.The bold claims that religion makes, the certainty it has about the truth that is a serious problem. How the world was created, how the human being was created, how we work, the outlook on reality and morality, how we ought to live – religion already has a definitive, absolute answer to these questions that comes from an all-knowing authority that simply can’t be wrong. .There is simply nothing more to it. I do truly understand that it is appealing for someone to forbid same-sex marriage when they 'know'  that it is inherently wrong, in the same way I think stealing is wrong. 

 

Of course it makes sense for them to try to order the society in such a way that it by law forbid same-sex marriage in the same way it makes sense for me to involve maybe become involved into politics and ensure that a law that forbid stealing is established. I would, if I was in the position of an IS soldier, be truly convinced that I was doing the right thing.  In the same way as I am now convinced that the horrible acts the allies committed during World War II was required to restore peace and order. I do not believe that these IS soldiers are evil, as little as I believe that a 9 -year old child who go out in holy wars to kill haven’t been indoctrinated.

 

The difference between the most religious fundamentalist and me, and even the some of the moderate one, is that if someone comes to me and say ‘’Wait, let me argue the case…’’ I won’t reply that there is no need to, because I already know the truth.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#26

Posted 02 November 2014 - 09:20 AM

Like you said, wars are usually/mostly political in nature but religious killings dont necessarily have to be only associated with wars. What about the whole crucification thing (assuming that even happened), or Inquisitions.

The good Doc above has covered this; these events have little if anything to do with religion.

Then of course you have few places in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan (excuse my ignorance if I listed the wrong regions or locations) where people throw acid left and right if you do not follow their beliefs and "teachings". This has been going on since the beginning of time with the people with that specific religion in that area.

Vitriolage does occur in many places in the Islamic world (but also in Europe, the Far East and elsewhere), but it's generally a response to shunned marriage proposals rather than an attack on religious non-believers. I'm not sure of why it tends to be more common in tribally-based communities (probably because they're tribally-based communities) but it isn't a manifestation of religious violence.

You then have some cults which utilize religious-style "teachings" to order people to do immoral actions.

Cults aren't religions, though. Their belief system usually centres around a single incredibly powerful individual.

If religion is a catalyst, if anything is a catalyst, it should either be removed, nerfed or very closely monitored as it can have a deep, influential effect on people's lives.

Well then we come back to the earlier example; you stated that cars are a catalyst in drink-driving deaths. Does the same logic not apply there? I mean, you could always content that vehicles have a defined physical purpose and that the good they bring about mitigates the potential harm, but you could make the same argument about religious belief and the positive effects it has on some individuals.

Difference between religion and video games is that religion has done more bad than good

Can you quantify this? Do you have a spreadsheet somewhere assigning quantifiable values to the positive and negative actions of religion in order to determine an overall "score", if you will, or is it...
 

I don't know, it just feels like, religion has never done anyone any good ever.

...merely just a stab in the dark?
  • Abel. likes this

Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#27

Posted 02 November 2014 - 07:23 PM Edited by Iroquois, 02 November 2014 - 07:25 PM.


Like you said, wars are usually/mostly political in nature but religious killings dont necessarily have to be only associated with wars. What about the whole crucification thing (assuming that even happened), or Inquisitions.

The good Doc above has covered this; these events have little if anything to do with religion.

Then of course you have few places in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan (excuse my ignorance if I listed the wrong regions or locations) where people throw acid left and right if you do not follow their beliefs and "teachings". This has been going on since the beginning of time with the people with that specific religion in that area.

Vitriolage does occur in many places in the Islamic world (but also in Europe, the Far East and elsewhere), but it's generally a response to shunned marriage proposals rather than an attack on religious non-believers. I'm not sure of why it tends to be more common in tribally-based communities (probably because they're tribally-based communities) but it isn't a manifestation of religious violence.

You then have some cults which utilize religious-style "teachings" to order people to do immoral actions.

Cults aren't religions, though. Their belief system usually centres around a single incredibly powerful individual.

If religion is a catalyst, if anything is a catalyst, it should either be removed, nerfed or very closely monitored as it can have a deep, influential effect on people's lives.

Well then we come back to the earlier example; you stated that cars are a catalyst in drink-driving deaths. Does the same logic not apply there? I mean, you could always content that vehicles have a defined physical purpose and that the good they bring about mitigates the potential harm, but you could make the same argument about religious belief and the positive effects it has on some individuals.

Difference between religion and video games is that religion has done more bad than good

Can you quantify this? Do you have a spreadsheet somewhere assigning quantifiable values to the positive and negative actions of religion in order to determine an overall "score", if you will, or is it... 

I don't know, it just feels like, religion has never done anyone any good ever.

...merely just a stab in the dark?
1. Hasnt all historical records showed or taught us that inquisitions were mainly religious in its origin and reasoning?

2. Yes but "vitriolage" exists because of teachings, morals, beliefs which originate from the religion in that area (what is considered good, evil, right, moral, fair etc.)...

3. Yes youre correct. Cults are not religions but without religion, cults wouldnt exist.

4. The car-religion comparison, I still stand by. Cars in general have more pros than cons..vice versa for religion. I think you may have also missed the part where i quoted you. Why did you not comment or respond to that?

5. Can you quantify the opposite?

6. Not really a shot in the dark, if it is backed up by proof.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#28

Posted 02 November 2014 - 09:58 PM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 02 November 2014 - 09:59 PM.

I'll give my own answers while we wait for sivi's. :pp

 

1. No.

2. Vitriolage originates mainly in revenge and hate. The religiousness of the offender doesn't matter. In fact most offenders in the West react that way after being left by a woman.

3. You can't say that for sure. People often idolise things that has nothing to do with religion. See personality cult.

4. Personally I see more cons than pros in (private) cars but that's me. Religion is a personal choice, it can be good or bad depending on the person that chooses to be religious.

Historically you can find pros and cons in basically everything mankind did from the beginning of times.

5. I guess sivi was being sarcastic in the sense that things like that can't be quantified with a "score" like you do with religion.

6. And the proof would be? I've seen none so far.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#29

Posted 03 November 2014 - 04:24 AM

Come on, all inquisitions and crusades relating to solely religion? Are you going to actually argue that the Ferdinand and Isabella kicked all the Muslims out because they weren't Catholic, or because they wouldn't acquiese politically? Did the Popes launch crusades for religion or for their own power and politcal gain? Think about it... I just don't buy "RELIGION" as the single number one motivator of really any way. There are ALWAYS underlying political or even economic causes, to even the most "religious" of conflicts.

  • sivispacem likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#30

Posted 03 November 2014 - 07:56 AM

I was going to respond but Doc has basically done it for me so there isn't much point.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users