Thread: Question for theists

So what you're saying is NAMALT (not all Muslims are like that).

This is the common war cry for all movements that consist of a radical element leading a much broader moderate element. Unfortunately it's the radicals who lead the movement politically, and the entire weight of the overall movement itself is used for statistical purposes - so when the radical leaders want to skew numbers they easily can, by showing how many there are in total and suggesting that all of them are behind the more radical agenda. Just the other day I heard some Christian throw out numbers like this, suggesting that 2/3s of the US population must hate gays, since after all 2/3s of the population are Christian, right? And unfortunately it's usually these massive numbers that lend weight to the political force of a movement. In other words, the moderates tend to get counted as radicals and are used as pieces in the game to gain political power.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Nice StephL, you're really good at using logic, and Zoth is not any bit least.
P.S: Just want to clear something about myself, I am(or was) a muslim, and during and after(now), I don't hate Jews, Christians or any other religoun. I never believed in judging someone according to his religoun.

Thank you!
I believe, what you say is - "I (almost completely) left behind my prior religion of Islam - but that does not make me a person, who hates people for their religion."

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So what you're saying is NAMALT (not all Muslims are like that).

This is the common war cry for all movements that consist of a radical element leading a much broader moderate element. Unfortunately it's the radicals who lead the movement politically, and the entire weight of the overall movement itself is used for statistical purposes - so when the radical leaders want to skew numbers they easily can, by showing how many there are in total and suggesting that all of them are behind the more radical agenda. Just the other day I heard some Christian throw out numbers like this, suggesting that 2/3s of the US population must hate gays, since after all 2/3s of the population are Christian, right? And unfortunately it's usually these massive numbers that lend weight to the political force of a movement. In other words, the moderates tend to get counted as radicals and are used as pieces in the game to gain political power.

While I agree with you - I think, you have misunderstood Louai´s post.
What she says is - one should not hate other people for their religion - and I agree.

You can even act from an attitude of love and try to help people loose their religion.
It is maybe debatable, if one should really try to help religious people to free themselves from their self-made and illusionary boundaries.
So that they ultimately use their instinctive feel for good and bad and their reason for which stories are reasonable and which not.
Well - I do try sometimes - but maybe they get depressed if they truly listen ..?

The problem is being indoctrinated since childhood to throw out of the window logic and reason when it comes to religion.
Principles otherwise put happily into practice and being Christian does not hinder people using them for their jobs.
Unfortunately religious people found it absolutely logical and easy again and again over the ages to also throw out their natural instincts about good and bad.
That´s where killing for religion comes from.

No religious classes at school would be a start. Why not general ethics for all - then at the very least - messing up the kid´s heads is the parents fault only.

But some developments do need addressing, if they come about - and with fierce opposition if it has to be.
Outside of concerns for the "enlightenment" of individuals.

And I also see Islam as the most damaging these days - I missed the heydays of Christian terror and wielding war for Jesus.
It is definitively not about any ethnic group - just to prevent somebody arguing at me like that.

Concerning your NAMALT - I have a favourite anti-religion ranter - he does this on Christianity, or lofty terms like "transcendence" as well - don´t anybody worry, he only dislikes Islam.

But he definitively doesn´t hate Muslims - in middle of the video - he addresses and tries to wake up to their benefit moderate Muslims - explaining what you got up to above as well:



There are more videos of him - but to differentiate strong opposition towards Islam - from hating Muslims - this is perfectly on topic.

Just to make sure - he is indeed offended by Islam - about basic believes, also of sort of "peaceful" character.
This one is more of a rant - so leave it be, if you are easily offended yourself:

Originally Posted by StephL

While I agree with you - I think, you have misunderstood Louai´s post.
What she says is - one should not hate other people for their religion - and I agree.

Oops! You're right -- sorry about that Louai! I really did go off on a tangent there that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything relevant, didn't I?

Oh, and according to Louai's info posted under his avatar, he's a he, not a she.

Oooops - sorry LouaiB!!
Don´t know, how this happened..redface.gif
And - I really like your avatar - it´s an iceberg, isn´t it?

No worries. Yes an Iceberg. I agree with you StephL. And it's true that muslims are the most damaging these days, especially al-kaeda(yes, kill all americans, that's the way to go, that's god's word). This is truly sad. I didn't leave islam because of that, I just stopped ignoring the doubts and left religioun, and I no longer believe in god, any god. And Darkmatters, you're absolutely right with what you said, and a lot of muslims hate Jews just for being Jews, but the rest aren't so closed-minded. Hopefully this will end someday (in the political matter and discrimination(right word?) matter.

Originally Posted by StephL

Unfortunately religious people found it absolutely logical and easy again and again over the ages to also throw out their natural instincts about good and bad.
That´s where killing for religion comes from.

I don't like how you use the term 'religious people' in this context, as though the indoctrination of abandoning logic in religion is somehow to blame for them slaughtering masses of people. I'm not certain if this is what you were trying to say. If it is, I disagree! Everything else you said though,

I think that the slaughtering is more related to the lifting of responsibility that can be associated with holy wars. If god says that I needed to do it, then god is responsible for their deaths, not me. I think that the extent to which people are willing to harm others when the responsibility is removed from them is pretty well demonstrated by Milgram's obedience experiment. Also, the cycle of dehumanization, "…the only way they can extract some degree of meaning out of the absurd events in which they find themselves participating is by coming to believe that the victims are subhuman and deserve to be rooted out. And thus the process of dehumanization feeds on itself" (Kelman/Hamilton 1989: 27). I don't think that irrational acts of violence are a religious person's disease. Any person can find themselves in such a situation in which they have to find a way to justify terrible things that are done to certain classes of people, or where they are pardoned of responsibility for their actions by an authority figure. Sorry for such a long rant, one of my friends that is what I would call an extreme atheist (by Zoth's definition) seems to believe that if there were no religions then there would be no more war . I think that religion is just another excuse or justification to kill, not a cause of the killing.


Stanley Milgram - Obedience
Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility - Herbert C. Kelman - Google Books

Yes, religouns are tools and excuses for wars, like in the middle east for example, the civil wars and what so. They are not the root cause of wars, unless the religous group goes to extremes and fights others according to their religoun(that is happening a lot in islam). I think StephL means that. So it is better without religouns, but certainly won't stop wars. There are a lot of factors like greed, fear,etc.

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

Originally Posted by StephL

Unfortunately religious people found it absolutely logical and easy again and again over the ages to also throw out their natural instincts about good and bad.
That´s where killing for religion comes from.

I don't like how you use the term 'religious people' in this context,

Me neither - I should have said it differently.

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

as though the indoctrination of abandoning logic in religion is somehow to blame for them slaughtering masses of people. I'm not certain if this is what you were trying to say.

Yes - it is what I was trying to say - but the example of the Catholic Inquisition ("who would expect the Spanish ..??") is a better and more specific example for what I want to say - systematically and from childhood cultivated irrationality was crucial there.

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

If it is, I disagree! Everything else you said though,

Thanks - and maybe I can make it clearer, how I mean it.

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

I think that the slaughtering is more related to the lifting of responsibility that can be associated with holy wars.
If god says that I needed to do it, then god is responsible for their deaths, not me.

I think that the extent to which people are willing to harm others when the responsibility is removed from them is pretty well demonstrated by Milgram's obedience experiment. Also, the cycle of dehumanization, "…the only way they can extract some degree of meaning out of the absurd events in which they find themselves participating is by coming to believe that the victims are subhuman and deserve to be rooted out. And thus the process of dehumanization feeds on itself" (Kelman/Hamilton 1989: 27).

That is surely an aspect - thanks for pointing this out!
And maybe you are right, that this makes up for a big/the biggest part - good question.

People believing in a doctrine, which in it's roots has clearly peaceful elements, who do not only transgress them, but also their inborn instincts as to what is good or bad on the basis of something of this sort.

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

I don't think that irrational acts of violence are a religious person's disease.

Any person can find themselves in such a situation in which they have to find a way to justify terrible things that are done to certain classes of people, or where they are pardoned of responsibility for their actions by an authority figure.

Yes - but I am talking about the people doing the horrible things out of irrational believes - not the ones following because of this sort of mechanism primarily.

Sometimes seemingly god did the things himself and it is only up to the people to find it great.
Like killing every Egyptian newborn is rooted in the completely irrational idea of being God`s chosen people.

Militancy, proselytism and the belief in being absolutely and undoubtedly right is something inherent in (most) religious.
Of course there are other classics as well racism, nationalism - or plain robbery.

I think, with having the supposed exclusive power for enabling an afterlife and eternity behind them - religions hold a special and quite unique power in their hands.
Has an empire in the world ever gained more subordinates than Christianity - or lets even say the Abraham-derived desert religions?

Originally Posted by anotherdreamer

Sorry for such a long rant, one of my friends that is what I would call an extreme atheist (by Zoth's definition) seems to believe that if there were no religions then there would be no more war .
I think that religion is just another excuse or justification to kill, not a cause of the killing.

Yes - and I did not say otherwise - of course it it just another - but it's power roots in leading people off the rational without putting them under extreme pressure in experiments - atrocities are ordered ex cathedra in the name of religion and based on irrational worldviews spread by religious officials - priests.