fluttermoth wrote:Deremensis wrote:So people who interpret religion differently, and in a more moderate way,
do not share fundamental ground with violent extremists.
I disagree with that idea. Whether it's a lovely CofE gay vicar with an acoustic guitar or a Muslim suicide bomber, they both share a faith in a higher power without evidence. I think the mindset, the way they process the world, is the same in both cases. The difference is in how they interpret that into they way they live.
The problem is that what's being implied here is that the fact that they both believe in a higher power means that they're both, essentially, violent terrorists. They're both on the "same side". One of them is just hiding it well.
I'd also disagree with the idea that both extremist terrorists and moderates share the same mindset. A lot of people grow up in religion. It doesn't guide their life, it doesn't even really play a major role in who they are. They've just never bothered to question it. A very, very large percentage of religious people are like that. I don't think those people operate by the same mindset as violent extremists.
tolman wrote:Deremensis wrote:The fact that different people take what they want from it should be EXPECTED - and as a result, when you see one person of a religion acting one way, and another person of the same religion acting a different way, that's not a result of cherry picking: it's a result of different personalities, backgrounds, and contexts.
Actually, if the people concerned are making any kind of claim to be being literal, or any kind of claim that their holy book or books are the word of God/Allah/YHWH/etc, or if they point at some scriptural claims and suggest those claims should be believed due to their supposed divine origin while ignoring (or even flying in the face of) other claims from the same source, then they are being selective while effectively claiming authority for the value of the selection from the supposed value of the whole, which if it isn't cherry picking in the strictest sense is clearly something very similar.
If, for example, someone selects some data to give a desired result, claiming authority for the result from it being a fair sample of the whole,
that is pretty much the definition of cherry picking .
You're right in that it is entirely expected that people would pick and choose what to believe or emphasise or ignore based on their personal opinions, since that is only natural, but being natural doesn't stop it from being logically bogus if combined with even the slightest of claims to authority which don't unambiguously justify the selectivity.
The difficulty comes when people aren't prepared to admit that that is what they are doing, and when being 'faithful' to some tradition (or at least pretending to be faithful) is at least overpraised or possibly even mandatory.
I'm not really here to argue whether or not it's bogus. Religion is bogus. That's why we're on this forum in the first place. I just detest this ridiculous notion that all religious people are on the "same side" as violent extremists.
I entirely agree that moderates pick and choose what they believe from their holy book. But that's not new. That's what's been happening for thousands of years. That is at the core of religion today, and has been for many, many years. Those moderates aren't doing something new, they aren't disregarding the fundamental nature of religion.
As I said before, the words exist in the holy book, yes. But those words have existed for thousands of years. They've been rewritten and reinterpreted hundreds of times. Religion is an organic idea - it changes based on time and social context, and on the individual. As such, a peaceful moderate of a religion isn't "on the same side" as violent extremists. They are just as close to turning into violent killers as you or I are - the reason those violent extremists exist in other places is largely a result of context, not of religion. Religion fuels the fire, definitely. But it's like saying that people join inner city gangs due to drugs - no, drugs fuel the fire, but the social and economic context that pushes people into gangs exists already. There is a pre-existing social, economic, and historic context that leads to the violent extremism we see in many parts of the world.
So treating violent extremism as this one-dimensional thing that is solely a result of religion is either extremely simpleminded or extremely, willfully, ignorant.
Scot Dutchy wrote:Somebody lacks a complete understanding what religion is or means and it is not me.
Scot Dutchy wrote:Deremensis wrote:So people who interpret religion differently, and in a more moderate way, do not share fundamental ground with violent extremists. The things that made those people violent extremists are their backgrounds, contexts, and personalities. Religion fuels the conflict, but I guarantee you that the conflicts could very well exist without religion - and pretending otherwise is ignorant not only of religion, but also of the contexts in which those violent extremists live.
Wrong but there you go. Moderates call those applying their holy book as fundamentalists are cherry pickers nothing more and nothing less and use it as protection. It is way of keeping the yummy bits while not having to bow under the yoke of the lousy bits. Mind you for the women there are not many yummy bits in islam.
Have you lost interest in discussing this? You're not responding to my points. You're largely ignoring them. You're simply reiterating your belief and stating "You're wrong, I'm right, whatev."
I've explained over, and over, and over why religious moderates are not fundamentally on the same side as violent, extremist terrorists. I've given numerous arguments, most of which have not been addressed in the slightest. As Spearthrower said, you're saying I'm wrong - but you aren't explaining how. Do you simply not care enough to consider the effects and foundations of your beliefs?
by 
