19 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIf your God tells you to go to war, is it not fair to say that the cause of the war is your religion?
Are you questioning the morality of the conquest of Canaan or trying to prove a "religious" war actually happened?
I'm only asking to see whether it follows that religion is necessarily stupid if it has been a cause of war.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAh, ok.
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do ...[text shortened]... Deut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=20&division=div1
Incidentally, this is called the 'ban', a not-uncommon practice at the time.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf your God tells you to go to war, is it not fair to say that the cause of the war is your religion?
If your God tells you to go to war, is it not fair to say that the cause of the war is your religion?
I'm only asking to see whether it follows that religion is necessarily stupid if it has been a cause of war.
Yes it is.
I'm only asking to see whether it follows that religion is necessarily stupid if it has been a cause of war.
Are you saying that both Judaism and Christianity are "stupid" religions?
Also, does a religion becomes stupid if the war in question is, in your opinion, a 'just war'?
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm not. I'm investigating the legitimacy of howardgee's claim...whether it follows that religions are stupid because they cause war. I'm not sure that I see the causal relationship.
Are you saying that both Judaism and Christianity are "stupid" religions?
Also, does a religion becomes stupid if the war in question is, in your opinion, a 'just war'?
Your other question...a religion (as a living body) can become stupid if fosters action contrary to reason. That's when reformers are handy, I suppose.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by vistesdI would think that any institutionalized system that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth, and (2) regards alternative views as dangerous or perverse, would have a built-in tendency (or temptation at least) toward violence as a means either to advance its tenets or to proscribe other views.
The morality question on that has been debated to death here (pardon the pun), and focused not on conquest, but on that “you shall save alive nothing” part. I don’t recall if anyone ever raised on here the historical question of whether such a large-scale conquest-by-war ever really took place.
But with regard to howardgee’s issue here—
I would think ...[text shortened]... ems, religious as well as secular.
Comparative “body counts” prove nothing, absolve no one.
A thought-provoking post...
Why would a system that claims total Truth need to advance it's tenets by violence. Surely the populace would recognise the Truth and therefore subscribe to it?
The very act of violent subjugation implies doubt in the validity of Truth.
19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeDid I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
As it happens though, WW1 was started by conflict between muslims (Serbia) and Xstians (Austria-Hungary).
As for WW2, ever heard of the holocaust?!?! Also the Japs worshipped their emperor as a God, which fanatacism earned them 2 atomic bombs.
Here's what you said:
Religion causes war, because there is no other course of action available to resolve differences between doctrines - no two religions can both be right at the same time.
Neither WWI or WWII were over religious doctrine, why are you suddenly changing your tune?
As for WW2, ever heard of the holocaust?!?! Also the Japs worshipped their emperor as a God, which fanatacism earned them 2 atomic bombs.
So you are still rigidly standing by your fallacies of "causal oversimplification" and "correlation implies causation".
Most people who fight in wars differ in religious doctrine, therefore this means that wars are caused by religion!!!
This is as fatuous as saying: most people who fight in wars carry weapons, therefore wars are caused by weapons.
PS. Maybe STANG would like a bite at this...
19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeBoth the Romans and Greeks built Temples to their own Gods in occupied territories and forced the conquered to worship them.
Wrong again!
Both the Romans and Greeks built Temples to their own Gods in occupied territories and forced the conquered to worship them.
Ever heard of the Romans throwing a few Xstians to the lions here and there?
Man, your grip on history is shaky.
Your argument is intrinsicaly fallacious, the armies of Rome didn't march for the glory of Pluto, Mars, Zeus's @$$ or Jupiter, it was for the "glory of Rome". Conquest of land, wealth, prestige and the propagation of western civilization were at the heart of Roman (and Greek) conquests.
There may have been uprisings as a result of these temples, consider the Maccabean Revolt, but these are side-shows compared to the vast campaigns of Persia and Germania. As I pointed out, wars may result in the difference of ideology, you have oversimplified this to merely a difference in religion.
Man, your grip on history is shaky.
Man, your grip on logic and seeing the bigger picture is shaky.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by AlgernonNot to forget the world's most wanted cave-man: Mr Bin Laden.
Let us not forget, also, that religion can be used dishonestly as a justification for aggressive action. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and during multiple confrontations with the United States and its allies, he would miraculous transform from a secular dictator to a pious muslim, praying publically and declaring the west an enemy of Islam. This is ...[text shortened]... it is clear that Saddam was fighting for political power, not to promote Allah above other gods.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by vistesdI would think that any institutionalized system ...
The morality question on that has been debated to death here (pardon the pun), and focused not on conquest, but on that “you shall save alive nothing” part. I don’t recall if anyone ever raised on here the historical question of whether such a large-scale conquest-by-war ever really took place.
But with regard to howardgee’s issue here—
I would think ...[text shortened]... ems, religious as well as secular.
Comparative “body counts” prove nothing, absolve no one.
Is it only institutionalised systems that would be prone? Think about culture and social mores. Although these are not enshrined in visible institutions they might still be considered True by adherents.
... that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth ...
One of the most fundamental assumptions of human thought is the principle of non-contradiction - contradictory propositions cannot simultaneously be true. Either YHWV exists, or he does not. Either Jesus was the Only-Begotten Son of God, or he was not. Either the human being is reincarnated as another living being, or he is not. So, anyone who asserts that a statement is true is automatically going to be irreconcilably opposed to those who hold the opposite. One or the other will need to change their stance based on additional data, logical incoherence of one of the positions or some fundamental aspect of the position that is emotionally unacceptable.
Second, human beings are also fundamentally oriented towards certainty in truth. We're not satisfied if a doctor's diagnosis is "It could be malaria". We canot be satisfied with unclear or uncertain answers to big questions like "Is there a God? What is he like? What happens to my soul after I die?" Human beings instinctively understand that these questions are important questions - probably more important than any other they will ask in their lifetime.
One could argue here that this is an attempt to make the ineffable effable. But there must be some aspects of the ineffable that are effable - or human beings wouldn't bother trying to look for it at all. Those effable aspects must adhere to the principle of non-contradiction.
Third, in terms of religions, no religion I know claims to express the "totality of Truth". What they do claim is the truth of the propositions they assert (and consequently the falsehood of contradictories); propositions they do not assert may or may not be true.
... and (2) regards alternative views as dangerous or perverse, ...
If A says X is true and B says not-X is true, then we know that both cannot be simultaneously right. If the person asserting the falsehood has his way, then we know that the result would be ignorance - which we almost always consider to be dangerous.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by Halitose"Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not" - thanks for confirming this by reiterating my line:
[b]Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
Here's what you said:
Religion causes war, because there is no other course of action available to resolve differences between doctrines - no two religions can both be right at the same time.
Neither WWI or WWII were over religious doctrine, why are you suddenly changing y ...[text shortened]... y weapons, therefore wars are caused by weapons.
PS. Maybe STANG would like a bite at this...[/b]
"Religion causes war,"
There is no contradiction here. Do you agree that "Smoking causes lung cancer"? If so, then consider the fact that some people who get lung cancer never smoked. Thus "religions cause wars" can be true even if some wars are not caused by religion.
I am afraid it is you who is guilty of "causal oversimplification" (or just plain non-comprehension).
"This is as fatuous as saying: most people who fight in wars carry weapons, therefore wars are caused by weapons."
When you think about it, this is not fatuous at all! Without weapons, there would be no wars. Thus weapons are indeed a cause of wars.
Thanks once more for proving my point. 😀
19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeWhen you think about it, this is not fatuous at all! Without weapons, there would be no wars. Thus weapons are indeed a cause of wars.
"Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not" - thanks for confirming this by reiterating my line:
"Religion causes war,"
There is no contradiction here. Do you agree that "Smoking causes lung cancer"? If so, then consider the fact that some people who get lung cancer never smoked. Thus "religions cause wars" can be true even ...[text shortened]... o wars. Thus weapons are indeed a cause of wars.
Thanks once more for proving my point. 😀
This is exactly the type of shallow thinking I was aligning you to. Thanks for proving my point. With no weapons people would still go at it with their fists and teeth. You are looking for the source of war about halfway too high up the causality ladder.
You smoking allegory is profoundly limited because you have a high probability of contracting lung cancer as a smoker, while religious people aren't predisposed to war.
Edit1: Forgive me for asking, but are you perhaps related to STANG?