Choosing my religion

Cathy Weeks wrote:

Like you, I suspect the tendency to massacre has MANY causes, and
religion is only one of them.

Indeed -- my point was, most people of faith are not murderers, just as
most athiests are not murderers. Most people, in general, are not
murderers.

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

Indeed -- my point was, most people of faith are not murderers, just as
most athiests are not murderers. Most people, in general, are not
murderers.

You are right, most people - regardless of faith or lackthereof - are
not murderers.

But what if you turn it around - and I'm just hypothetically speaking
here - and you found that 100% of murderers were religious?

You can't really assign causality (ie, religion doesn't *cause*
violence in and of itself, as demonstrated by the copious numbers of
non-violent religious individuals), but there might be a correlation
(ie, all violent people are religious). Of course, this is purely
supposition - I have no numbers in front of me (I was unable to find
stats on the religious beliefs of criminals).

In general, I've found little relationship between whether a person was
moral or not or even a good (ie nice) person and their religious views.

Cathy Weeks

In article , Lee says...

Banty said:

In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:

Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution - yes, I think we can say religion is
not the only motive for these insane passions of control.

Although I am very concerned that religions are motivating expectations of power
and future events which is propelling the violence of our day. And it may be
catastrophic.

Thanks. After I posted this, I found at least two major massacres
perpetrated by athiests - Stalin's purges was one, and Pol Pot's in
Cambodia was another.

shrug Throughout history, most were not done by athiests, however.
Like you, I suspect the tendency to massacre has MANY causes, and
religion is only one of them.

Sad...

I think in most cases, religion is pointed to, but it's really just one of any
sort of cultural or traditional distinguishing feature of the groups in
conflict.


It's a lot easier to wage war on people who aren't like us,
so incompatible cultures is a near pre-requisite for war.

Not true.

We wage war with those with whom we have a clash in *interests*. Which is most
often our neighbors. Who are most likely of all possibilities to be most like
ourselves.

We have all kinds of rationalizations which take care of the demonization
aspect, religion being a fairly handy (but not necessary) one.


People whose cultures are so completely different as to not
even accept What We Know To Be True are easily dehumanized.



Pop quiz: The bloodiest, most violent war fought by Americans is ________.
It is left as an exercise to the reader how this relates to this theory that war
is waged between very different cultures.

Banty (not WWII, the century before that)


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , Banty says...

In article , Lee says...

Banty said:

In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:

Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution - yes, I think we can say religion is
not the only motive for these insane passions of control.

Although I am very concerned that religions are motivating expectations of power
and future events which is propelling the violence of our day. And it may be
catastrophic.

Thanks. After I posted this, I found at least two major massacres
perpetrated by athiests - Stalin's purges was one, and Pol Pot's in
Cambodia was another.

shrug Throughout history, most were not done by athiests, however.
Like you, I suspect the tendency to massacre has MANY causes, and
religion is only one of them.

Sad...

I think in most cases, religion is pointed to, but it's really just one of any
sort of cultural or traditional distinguishing feature of the groups in
conflict.


It's a lot easier to wage war on people who aren't like us,
so incompatible cultures is a near pre-requisite for war.

Not true.

We wage war with those with whom we have a clash in *interests*. Which is most
often our neighbors. Who are most likely of all possibilities to be most like
ourselves.

We have all kinds of rationalizations which take care of the demonization
aspect, religion being a fairly handy (but not necessary) one.


People whose cultures are so completely different as to not
even accept What We Know To Be True are easily dehumanized.



Pop quiz: The bloodiest, most violent war fought by Americans is ________.
It is left as an exercise to the reader how this relates to this theory that war
is waged between very different cultures.

Banty (not WWII, the century before that)



Well, maybe not compared to WWII, but the point still stands.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Banty wrote:


Well, maybe not compared to WWII, but the point still stands.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Actually, if you count the total number of *deaths* (both combat and
other causes) the civil war was still bloodier - 558,052 vs 407,316 for
WWII.

We could argue that lots of soldiers died of dysentary during the civil
war, due to poor conditions in the military camps, still counts - they
died, and were willing to die for their cause.

Cathy Weeks

In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:


Well, maybe not compared to WWII, but the point still stands.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Actually, if you count the total number of *deaths* (both combat and
other causes) the civil war was still bloodier - 558,052 vs 407,316 for
WWII.

For us. I decided it was kinda unfair to take numbers of a civil war, with both
sides counted, and compare it to a war with unimaginable deaths on our allies +
the enemies' sides. But, yes, counting just us, it's the bloodiest. And even
more bloody if you look at the comparitive population numbers - about six time
more in the 1940's compared to the 1860's.


We could argue that lots of soldiers died of dysentary during the civil
war, due to poor conditions in the military camps, still counts - they
died, and were willing to die for their cause.


That's in the tables.

But we (as humans) most certainly don't save our most violent impulses for those
most different from us.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , Lee says...

Banty said:

In article , Lee says...

Banty said:

In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:

Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution - yes, I think we can say religion is
not the only motive for these insane passions of control.

Although I am very concerned that religions are motivating expectations of power
and future events which is propelling the violence of our day. And it may be
catastrophic.

Thanks. After I posted this, I found at least two major massacres
perpetrated by athiests - Stalin's purges was one, and Pol Pot's in
Cambodia was another.

shrug Throughout history, most were not done by athiests, however.
Like you, I suspect the tendency to massacre has MANY causes, and
religion is only one of them.

Sad...

I think in most cases, religion is pointed to, but it's really just one of any
sort of cultural or traditional distinguishing feature of the groups in
conflict.


It's a lot easier to wage war on people who aren't like us,
so incompatible cultures is a near pre-requisite for war.

Not true.

We wage war with those with whom we have a clash in *interests*. Which is most
often our neighbors. Who are most likely of all possibilities to be most like
ourselves.

We have all kinds of rationalizations which take care of the demonization
aspect, religion being a fairly handy (but not necessary) one.


People whose cultures are so completely different as to not
even accept What We Know To Be True are easily dehumanized.



Pop quiz: The bloodiest, most violent war fought by Americans is ________.
It is left as an exercise to the reader how this relates to this theory that war
is waged between very different cultures.

One counter-example in the history of warfare isn't very compelling.
And that's not even bothering to dispute whether or not Northern and
Souther cultures were (or are) very different.

The difference in interests is the cause behind the war, but
the difference in cultures is an important catalyst.



Way too simplistic (and dangerous and smug to believe.)

We and the British killed more white Christian Europeans sharing surnames with
many Americans in carpet bombing a city named Dresden than we did by dropping
one bomb on Shinto and Buddhist Asians in a city named Hiroshima. And with many
many more bombers, flying lower, watching the firestorms take over and taking
more time about it, too.

There are many other counterexamples. We fight those with whom we have a
conflict, not those who are most different from us.

You came up with that - YOU need to develop YOUR thesis.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Banty wrote:

We and the British killed more white Christian Europeans sharing surnames with
many Americans in carpet bombing a city named Dresden than we did by dropping
one bomb on Shinto and Buddhist Asians in a city named Hiroshima. And with many
many more bombers, flying lower, watching the firestorms take over and taking
more time about it, too.

Really? More people died in the bombing of Dresden than in the bombing
of Hiroshima? I wouldn't have thought that.

Thanks,
Cathy Weeks

Banty wrote:

We and the British killed more white Christian Europeans sharing surnames with
many Americans in carpet bombing a city named Dresden than we did by dropping
one bomb on Shinto and Buddhist Asians in a city named Hiroshima. And with many
many more bombers, flying lower, watching the firestorms take over and taking
more time about it, too.

Actually, I think this is incorrect. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#Atomic_bombing

Cathy Weeks

In article .com,
"Cathy Weeks" wrote:

Actually, I've been wondering - if we look at any massacre - say of
over 10 people at any given time - have any of the massacres been
perpetrated by athiests?

snort

You've never heard of Pol Pot or Stalin? How about Mao? Hitler talked
religion from time to time, though I don't think he believed in one, but we
can omit him if you like.

I tried to do a search on violent crime and religion, but all I found
were the religions of the victims, rather than the religion (or
lackthereof) of the criminal.

OK, let's allocate one point per person murdered to produce a league table of
ideologies. With the heavy hitters -- Stalin and Mao Zedong -- in fine form,
the Atheists are in with a real chance to win the Torquemada Cup for most
murderous ideology.

Or does it sound just a bit sick to think of the deaths of millions in that
way?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue