Much of the criticism of religion revolves around religious violence, but rarely ever do these criticism ever explore the nature of violence itself.

If we were to think of ones capacity for violence in terms of fight of flight responses, does subscribing to a religion, like Christianity or Islam, push one's tendency in one direction over the other? Does subscribing to a religion make one more inclined to fight, than subscribing to non-religion?

Western atheist communities tend to lack an affinity towards violence, but is atheism really a factor here? If we were to take a violent convict who believes in God, and lead him to lose this belief, do you believe he would become less violent as a result?

the mouse wrote: Does subscribing to a religion make one more inclined to fight, than subscribing to non-religion?

Have you asked the Dalai Lama?

Sendraks wrote:

Have you asked the Dalai Lama?

No, unless of course he's a frequent participant here.

the mouse wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Have you asked the Dalai Lama?

No, unless of course he's a frequent participant here.

Perhaps you might want to consider what he believes and reflect on how that might govern his behaviour, then reconsider your questions?

Sendraks wrote:

Perhaps you might want to consider what he believes and reflect on how that might govern his behaviour, then reconsider your questions?

The question is directed at individuals who participate here. I'm looking to hear their views on the topic, and not necessarily the Dalai Lama, unless you agree with these views, and care to highlight those quotes here.

I did do a brief search anyways out of curiosity, but didn't find much. He did state that he viewed the Islamic terrorists view of Jihadism to be a distortion of the true meaning of it, which he considers to be a inner battle and not an outwardly one, but other than that, i didn't find much of anything else of use.

I see. So you've not given any consideration to the question as to whether what people believe is perhaps more important as to whether they believe, in respect of violent behaviour?

Maybe there is a possibility for the Flight mechanism to be 'dampened' a little if the religion dominates (eta - and the enemy is an out-group). Difficult to know.

Sendraks wrote:I see. So you've not given any consideration to the question as to whether what people believe is perhaps more important as to whether they believe, in respect of violent behaviour?

I have given the question of violence a considerable degree of thought, but i haven't even shared my views here, since my interest is more in regards to how critics of religion view it. Hence the reason, i'm hear asking the question.

When you brought up the Dalai Lama, it did pique my interest and I was curious to hear his thoughts on the subject, but they only amount to so much, since his responses don't directly address the questions, and also since I am unable to ask him follow up questions regarding his views. If I google Dalai Lama and the religious violence, i don't get any relevant hits, but either way, I'm looking for some sort of dialogue.

// as to whether what people believe is perhaps more important as to whether they believe, in respect of violent behaviour?//

Well surely, what people believe is more important in respect to violent behavior, but the question here would be is violent behavior caused by beliefs? Or are the beliefs regarding those behaviors just a means to rationalize our actions. If I killed a man for stepping on my shoes, is the source of my violent nature, a belief that stepping on my shoes warrants violence?

Is what separates the most violent members of our society from those least attracted to violence, merely beliefs?

If beliefs are a crucial factor, is this only true for humans, and not other animals?

What do you mean by "beliefs?" Because your definition appears to be going all over the place.

Sendraks wrote:What do you mean by "beliefs?" Because your definition appears to be going all over the place.

Belief: 1.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language
we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs

the mouse wrote:

Sendraks wrote:What do you mean by "beliefs?" Because your definition appears to be going all over the place.

Belief: 1.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language
we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs

Still a pretty broad definition.
After all, the reason why one might fight because someone trod on their shoes are very different to the reason someone else fights because "god told them to do it."

In addition, the reason why an individual might formulate the belief "anyone who treads on my shoes deserves a beating" could simply be because that person is a violent individual (possibly a product of their upbringing, cultural or social group) and they are just looking for an excuse to fight someone.

Indeed, if you look at most of the places in the world where "religious" conflicts are underway, some common themes emerge.
Deprivation
Lack of civil rights
Poor Education
Lack of democracy
And so on and so forth.

the mouse wrote:Much of the criticism of religion revolves around religious violence,

I would say that’s a falsehood. I assume you mean it with good intentions. The primary criticism as far as I can see is concerned with its honesty. Religious believers lack contact with reality. They are ‘deluded’. Their emotions will guide their actions more so than will their reasoning. That being the case it’s probable that their responses to any given situation will be more emotional, more extreme than rationalists. That most religions espouse hatred of out-groups (often leading to violence) is a secondary, though powerful criticism.

the mouse wrote:but rarely ever do these criticism ever explore the nature of violence itself.

Can you explain what you mean by the “nature of violence”? It sounds mumbo-jumbo.

the mouse wrote:If we were to think of one’s capacity for violence in terms of fight of [sic] flight responses, does subscribing to a religion, like Christianity or Islam, push one's tendency in one direction over the other? Does subscribing to a religion make one more inclined to fight, than subscribing to non-religion?

As a first thought on the matter I would say that “subscribing to a religion” and “an inclination to violence” stem from the same kind of irrational, emotional thinking. That both religions actively encourage bigotry towards out-groups (within and without the same religion) will certainly act in concert with such irrational thinking.

the mouse wrote:Western atheist communities tend to lack an affinity towards violence, but is atheism really a factor here? If we were to take a violent convict who believes in God, and lead him to lose this belief, do you believe he would become less violent as a result?

As above the kind of thinking that tends to preclude religious belief probably tends to preclude violence. In your particular example I doubt that you could make an irrational ‘believer’ into a genuine rational thinker without it spilling over into other areas of their psychology (You could probably get a convict to lose his belief in god by plugging him into the mains, but it won’t make him a rational thinker - a violent convict will believe anything if it gives him a “get out of jail” card.).




FYI The flight or fight response is badly named. The response described is elicited by many stimuli. It is not ‘spooling-up’ the body for only fight or flight.

colubridae wrote: That most religions espouse hatred of out-groups (often leading to violence) is a secondary, though powerful criticism.

Most religions don't espouse hatred of out-groups, most religions particularly exclusive monotheist will espouse that other groups are wrong, but this doesn't mean they espouse hatred of these groups, no more so than believing religious people are wrong, or delusional equates to espousing hatred.

Can you explain what you mean by the “nature of violence”? It sounds mumbo-jumbo.

Perhaps "the science of violent behavior"? Why some folks are more prone to violence than others? The differences between violent behavior in other animals, and human beings, etc..... Why some folks who subscribe to a particular religion might be prone to violence, while other who subscribe to the same religion might not be, etc...

religion” and “an inclination to violence” stem from the same kind of irrational, emotional thinking.

Not really. Violence can in fact be a rationally decided means to an end. In fact not acting violent can also stem from emotional thinking, such as not acting violent out of fear, cowardice, etc...

I have yet to find some method that has allowed one group of people to rise above the influence of their emotions on their thoughts, particularly thoughts they hold so passionately. In my experience those that hold a passionate distaste for religion, are unable to remove their emotions when exploring topics surrounding it. Nor do I see that a person's ability to think clearly and comprehensively on some topics, extends to all other topics as well.

As above the kind of thinking that tends to preclude religious belief probably tends to preclude violence.

I'm assuming you're suggesting that since atheists are likely led to this position through rational thinking, that rational thinking also tends to preclude one from violence?

If so, does rational thinking just lessen a person from acting violently, or does it also dampen the impulses for violence as well? Will rational thinking lead a person to not hit someone who hit them, or will it also remove the desire to hit them back as well? Will rational thinking make one more prone to flight than fight?

I would think that controlling one's urges for violence, is more of a matter of self-discipline, like controlling one's urges to eat fattening food, maintaining a diet, living a regimented life, maintaining a strong work ethic, controlling sexual urges, etc..... Do you think atheists more so than deluded believers, are more prone to self-discipline in these areas as well? I don't think so. Nor do I think a greater capacity to reason equates to a greater degree of self-discipline either.

In your particular example I doubt that you could make an irrational ‘believer’ into a genuine rational thinker without it spilling over into other areas of their psychology

I don't think this is true, and I don't think there is such a thing as a rational thinker, in the sense that he is rational about all matters. I think people can only think rationally about some things, but not all things. And that even having a gifted ability to analyze a certain subjects, doesn't necessarily spill over into other areas as well. A man can be an eminent physicist, and an idiot when in comes to geopolitics.

FYI The flight or fight response is badly named. The response described is elicited by many stimuli. It is not ‘spooling-up’ the body for only fight or flight.

I'm not to sure what you're getting at here, but perhaps you can elaborate further.

Sendraks wrote:
After all, the reason why one might fight because someone trod on their shoes are very different to the reason someone else fights because "god told them to do it."

How so?

In addition, the reason why an individual might formulate the belief "anyone who treads on my shoes deserves a beating" could simply be because that person is a violent individual (possibly a product of their upbringing, cultural or social group) and they are just looking for an excuse to fight someone.

Why wouldn't this apply to formulated "religious beliefs"? Why wouldn't we see violent individuals, who are possibly a product of their upbringing, cultural or social group, as just using religion as an excuse to fight someone?

Indeed, if you look at most of the places in the world where "religious" conflicts are underway, some common themes emerge.
Deprivation
Lack of civil rights
Poor Education
Lack of democracy
And so on and so forth.

Wouldn't all this just evoke a cultureof violence? And just be further evidence, that the violence that emerges in these societies, just uses religion as an excuse for it?

the mouse wrote:Wouldn't all this just evoke a cultureof violence? And just be further evidence, that the violence that emerges in these societies, just uses religion as an excuse for it?

Yup, pretty much.
Religion is actually a pretty simple message for the most part and simple messages are easy to unify people with. Doesn't even mean that the people doing the unifying actually believe the messages themselves if their agenda is power, but historically religion has proven to be an effective tool for getting the downtrodden masses to do what you want and then keeping them downtrodden.

Sendraks wrote: but historically religion has proven to be an effective tool for getting the downtrodden masses to do what you want and then keeping them downtrodden.

It's also proven to be an effective tool for getting the downtrodden masses to fight the powers that be, such as the abolitionist movement, civil rights, etc...

If our passions for violence or desire for justice is in need of a cosmic home, religions have been very uniquely accommodating.

the mouse wrote:It's also proven to be an effective tool for getting the downtrodden masses to fight the powers that be, such as the abolitionist movement, civil rights, etc....

Hmmm, yup those were totally pro-religious things.
In no way was the opposition to those things also driven by religious types.

Sendraks wrote:In no way was the opposition to those things also driven by religious types.

Uhm, i thought my previous post was pretty clear that religion was used as an effective tool by both the opposition and supporters?

Hmmm, yup those were totally pro-religious things.

Yes, they were all "pro-religious" things, in regards to their particular form of religion.

the mouse wrote: ... since my interest is more in regards to how critics of religion view it. Hence the reason, i'm hear asking the question...

You are no more interested in elucidating information than the man in the moon.

the mouse wrote:

colubridae wrote: That most religions espouse hatred of out-groups (often leading to violence) is a secondary, though powerful criticism.

Most religions don't espouse hatred of out-groups, most religions particularly exclusive monotheist will espouse that other groups are wrong, but this doesn't mean they espouse hatred of these groups, no more so than believing religious people are wrong, or delusional equates to espousing hatred.

Yes they do. Your cherry picking from your narrow selection of la-la land is just closing your mind to reality. See middle-east right now. See History of Christianity.
That Christianity and Judaism have been tightly leashed by secular authorities may delude you into thinking that your particular flavour is violence free but it’s only a delusion. Check out practically every thread on this forum to disabuse yourself.

the mouse wrote:

Can you explain what you mean by the “nature of violence”? It sounds mumbo-jumbo.

Yawn. I'm out, this topic is now off my bookmarks.


Perhaps "the science of violent behavior"? Why some folks are more prone to violence than others? The differences between violent behavior in other animals, and human beings, etc..... Why some folks who subscribe to a particular religion might be prone to violence, while other who subscribe to the same religion might not be, etc...

This is just more mumbo-jumbo. It’s designed to muddy the waters enabling you to kedge in your flavour of fantasy. Seen it all before hundreds of times.

the mouse wrote:

religion” and “an inclination to violence” stem from the same kind of irrational, emotional thinking.

Not really.

Yes really.

the mouse wrote:Violence can in fact be a rationally decided means to an end.

Yes it can, I never said it couldn’t. Often a necessary evil. Like chemotherapy. But that doesn’t invalidate the notion that ‘“religion” and “an inclination to violence” stem from the same kind of irrational, emotional thinking.’
Irrational, emotional thinking is a strong contender for the source of both violence and religion.

the mouse wrote:In fact not acting violent can also stem from emotional thinking, such as not acting violent out of fear, cowardice, etc...

For sure, but it doesn’t imply that religion/violence aren’t generated by the same irrational thinking. False dichotomy.

the mouse wrote:I have yet to find some method that has allowed one group of people to rise above the influence of their emotions on their thoughts, particularly thoughts they hold so passionately.

Poppycock. Check out page after page of rational discourse from atheists on his forum. That should give you all the evidence you need that rational thinking allows atheists (or any rational thinker) to “rise above the influence of their emotions” to greater extent than most theists. Don’t project your failures onto atheists.

the mouse wrote:In my experience those that hold a passionate distaste for religion, are unable to remove their emotions when exploring topics surrounding it.

Then your experience is embarrassingly limited. Again check out other threads on this forum. They all show that religious thinking is largely emotional and blocks the view of reality.

the mouse wrote:Nor do I see that a person's ability to think clearly and comprehensively on some topics, extends to all other topics as well.

So fucking what. I never said it did extend to all topics. Your point is what? Are you claiming that rational thinking in one area precludes such thinking in all other areas? In some areas? Has no effect at all on the rest of one’s psychology? Acitivates irrationality in other areas, in all other areas? Generates homeostatic balancing of irrational/rational thinking.

See two can play machine guns. Shows up your violence donnit!

As above the kind of thinking that tends to preclude religious belief probably tends to preclude violence.

That’s exactly what I said. Why have you taken this out of context. We are conceivably on the brink of a world religious war, and your view is that theists are more able “to rise above their emotions” than atheists. Wake up and smell the coffee.

the mouse wrote:If so, does rational thinking just lessen a person from acting violently,

Yes.

the mouse wrote:or does it also dampen the impulses for violence as well?

Yes, your impulses influence your thinking and your thinking influences your impulses. It’s not a one way street.

the mouse wrote: Will rational thinking lead a person to not hit someone who hit them, or will it also remove the desire to hit them back as well?

Pointless question, unless you describe each circumstance.

the mouse wrote:Will rational thinking make one more prone to flight than fight?

Sigh! It depends on the circumstances. If someone is hitting you the rational thing to do is make them stop. How depends on the circumstances. Returned violence maybe necessary. Turning the other cheek is the most absurd irrationality ever, see C. Hitchens.

the mouse wrote:I would think that controlling one's urges for violence, is more of a matter of self-discipline, like controlling one's urges to eat fattening food, maintaining a diet, living a regimented life, maintaining a strong work ethic, controlling sexual urges, etc.....

Self-discipline and rational thinking are different things stop conflating the two. It’s confusing you.

the mouse wrote: Do you think atheists more so than deluded believers, are more prone to self-discipline in these areas as well? I don't think so.

Total non-sense Of course rational thinkers are more able to exercise self-discipline than irrational thinkers. Irrational thinkers, by definition, are less able to control their emotions.

the mouse wrote:Nor do I think a greater capacity to reason equates to a greater degree of self-discipline either.

Your thoughts are of little consequence to reality.

the mouse wrote:

In your particular example I doubt that you could make an irrational ‘believer’ into a genuine rational thinker without it spilling over into other areas of their psychology

I don't think this is true, and I don't think there is such a thing as a rational thinker, in the sense that he is rational about all matters. I think people can only think rationally about some things, but not all things. And that even having a gifted ability to analyze a certain subjects, doesn't necessarily spill over into other areas as well. A man can be an eminent physicist, and an idiot when in comes to geopolitics.

Your thoughts are, again, of little consequence to reality. Being rational in one area is likely to drag all one’s psychology along the continuum towards rationality. But yes, no one is totally rational about everything. So what?

the mouse wrote:

FYI The flight or fight response is badly named. The response described is elicited by many stimuli. It is not ‘spooling-up’ the body for only fight or flight.

I'm not to sure what you're getting at here, but perhaps you can elaborate further.

My bad. I was trying to subtly demonstrate you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2094684