Most non-Muslims support terrorism

[Augustus]

I agree that religion doesn't have a lock on bad behavior. But that doesn't mean we can't attack the problem one step at a time.

As for your broader perspective, you've said this before, and you might be right. My perspective is that it's worth fighting for a change.

Any opinions on why we should give any credence to polls on these issue when they are so obviously wildly inaccurate?

 

[icehorse]

Any opinions on why we should give any credence to polls on these issue when they are so obviously wildly inaccurate?

I would say that some polls are more reliable than others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

anti-theists tend to want to see religions as having some magically unique violence causing qualities).

Have you ever read the Abrahamic religious texts? They condone and even command violence against the non-believers throughout. It's a not a "magically unique violence causing quality," but the very commandments from their own god from whichever of the three books they are reading. They are fools, you are not to associate with them, no good can come of them, and you are to kill them. There is nothing magical about it when it's included in the dogma.

 

[Augustus]

I would say that some polls are more reliable than others.

Which of those 4 polls I cited is the reliable one?

Seems to me that people like to pretend they can tell a reliable poll from an unreliable one but choose more on whether the poll agrees with their views or not.

Give something a veneer of "scientific" rigour then people will be very credulous even when confronted with significant evidence that the "science" is bogus.

 

[Augustus]

Have you ever read the Abrahamic religious texts? They condone and even command violence against the non-believers throughout. It's a not a "magically unique violence causing quality," but the very commandments from their own god from whichever of the three books they are reading. They are fools, you are not to associate with them, no good can come of them, and you are to kill them. There is nothing magical about it when it's included in the dogma.

The point wasn't that nobody has ever been religiously motivated to commit violence, but that religion is simply an ideology, and ideological violence is an inescapable fact of human society whether that ideology is religious or otherwise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point wasn't that nobody has ever been religiously motivated to commit violence, but that religion is simply an ideology, and ideological violence is an inescapable fact of human society whether that ideology is religious or otherwise.

Except for the fact that the Tanakh, Bible, and Quran all command, mandate, and demand violence against the non-believers/infidels. It's not like it's someone deciding to be so dogmatic they turn violent and have to seek external justification; all they need to do is turn to their religious books to find their god has already not only granted them permission, he told them it is what he commands.

 

[icehorse]

Which of those 4 polls I cited is the reliable one?

Seems to me that people like to pretend they can tell a reliable poll from an unreliable one but choose more on whether the poll agrees with their views or not.

Give something a veneer of "scientific" rigour then people will be very credulous even when confronted with significant evidence that the "science" is bogus.

Hey @Augustus

Of course citations and sources in all domains very in quality, and of course everyone is subject to bias, and of course some people are in general more credulous than others. That's always true in every domain, is there something unique about this domain?

 

[Augustus]

Of course citations and sources in all domains very in quality, and of course everyone is subject to bias, and of course some people are in general more credulous than others. That's always true in every domain, is there something unique about this domain?

No, it's perfectly normal.

People (all of us) are not particularly rational and will frequently ignore evidence that contradicts what they want to believe even if they profess to base their beliefs on evidence (perhaps especially when they profess to base their beliefs on evidence) . We are driven by narratives not facts, and narratives are very easy to construct. This is just the way our brains evolved to work, and we are better at seeing it in others than in ourselves (we also evolved to be hypocritical ).

People much prefer convenience to accuracy and will continue to believe convenient things even when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

This was the general idea behind the thread.

 

[Augustus]

Except for the fact that the Tanakh, Bible, and Quran all command, mandate, and demand violence against the non-believers/infidels. It's not like it's someone deciding to be so dogmatic they turn violent and have to seek external justification; all they need to do is turn to their religious books to find their god has already not only granted them permission, he told them it is what he commands.

Yet if everyone had stuck to their traditional religious ideologies rather than the 20th C political utopianisms that drew on Enlightenment Values (from the illiberal side of course), nationalist Romanticism and Social Darwinism (not really fair to credit it to him as it predates him, but he did buy into such theories), there would have been far less death and destruction in the 20th C.

This is inconvenient to your arguments that religions are uniquely powerful violence causing agents.

We are just a violent species by nature.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet if everyone had stuck to their traditional religious ideologies rather than the 20th C political utopianisms that drew on Enlightenment Values...there would have been far less death and destruction in the 20th C.

"Traditional religious ideologies" kept slavery legal, women repressed, sexuality repressed, and things like freedom of religion, a very cherished right of ours, is explicitly prohibited in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we stuck to these religious ideologies, Salem may not have been one of the last major witch hunts. Women who aren't virgins on their wedding night would still be degraded. And don't forget these traditional values did help spawn the Klan. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they weren't drawing from Enlightenment values, but rather they tended not to agree with or like such things.

Social Darwinism (not really fair to credit it to him as it predates him, but he did buy into such theories),

No, Darwin did not "buy into those things" (it is improper to call such a theory) but rather to the contrary wrote the opposite of social animals developing a conscience to drive cooperation and group adhesion, enhancing the survivability of both the group and individual.

 

[Augustus]

"Traditional religious ideologies" kept slavery legal, women repressed, sexuality repressed, and things like freedom of religion, a very cherished right of ours, is explicitly prohibited in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we stuck to these religious ideologies, Salem may not have been one of the last major witch hunts. Women who aren't virgins on their wedding night would still be degraded. And don't forget these traditional values did help spawn the Klan. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they weren't drawing from Enlightenment values, but rather they tended not to agree with or like such things.

Religious ideologies, just like non-religious ideologies are a very mixed bag. You can find Christian arguments against slavery and for freedom of religion from the 2nd/3rd C or so. Your interpretation of the text is not universal.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that religion is wonderful, cute and fluffy because it wasn't, just that people overstate its role in causing violence as they don't compare it equally with the totality of non-religious ideologies.

Marxism and its antecedents were unequivocally a product of the Enlightenment, continuing the trends of the more radical factions of the French revolution. It really wasn't about 'tradition values', which were seen as the primary obstacle to humanity reaching a true freedom.

Modern Humanists like to whitewash the Enlightenment as being about their values, but that was only half of the Enlightenment. The other half was often decidedly illiberal.

Nazism/Fascism were more from the Romantic tradition which was often a response to the Enlightenment, however the Social Darwinism and Eugenics components were clearly products of the Enlightenment.

No need for hagiography of the Enlightenment, major social and intellectual changes branch off in countless different ways not all of which are 'good'.

No, Darwin did not "buy into those things" (it is improper to call such a theory) but rather to the contrary wrote the opposite of social animals developing a conscience to drive cooperation and group adhesion, enhancing the survivability of both the group and individual.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Darwin believed it inevitable that the 'lesser races' would become extinct. He also viewed women as inferior to men in their capabilities.

The 'social' in social Darwinism is really redundant as he never believed humans were somehow exempt from such forces of nature.

This is not to say he was malicious in his intent, just that is what he believed was scientifically correct.

No need to whitewash him just because he is an important figure to many. He was a man of his time, and scientific beliefs don't have to conform to modern liberal values.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your interpretation of the text is not universal.

Yes, but many, many times anyone who wants to claim the books are peaceful are ignoring things like "the man who says lets follow and worship other gods must be put to death." Or trying to say Jesus did away with the old laws even three times he said he was not doing away with the law.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Darwin did not develop the concept of "Social Darwinism," nor do his writings support it. Rather, it basically came with "financial survival of the fittest" (something else Darwin himself didn't use) as a means to justify social inequalities.

 

[Augustus]

Darwin did not develop the concept of "Social Darwinism," nor do his writings support it. Rather, it basically came with "financial survival of the fittest" (something else Darwin himself didn't use) as a means to justify social inequalities.

Nobody really used the term Social Darwinism other than later and always pejoratively. People like Spencer, Haekel, Galton and Malthus are far more important. SD predates Darwin, and applies to diverse concepts from economics, social welfare provision and scientific racialism.

Still, certainly by the latter stages of his life, Darwin personally held views that would be classified as SD though, unless you consider his beliefs (from the Descent of Man) that the savage races would be replaced by the civilised ones somehow not to count as SD (and this isn't an out of context misquote, it matches other writings).

Creationists want to turn Darwin into some kind of nefarious evil doer, others want to whitewash his views to suit a modern palate.

SD (regardless of its link to Darwin) was considered 'good science' at the time though and was very influential in the 20th C totalitarianisms (Marx was strongly influenced by Darwin).