Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?

[Ted Goas]

Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.

I recently read this article on Relijournal:
http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823

The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.

Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
about?

We posed this question on our own site here:
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the-sand/

But you don't even need to read it. I pose this question to you guys
since it's a huge topic with tons of variables:

Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?

I'd be interested to hear what you guys have to say, without the
shouting that sometimes appeared in AvC.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[Drafterman]

On Jul 10, 11:30 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

>
> But you don't even need to read it. I pose this question to you guys
> since it's a huge topic with tons of variables:
>
> Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?

The question is not that simple. Let's use an analogy shall we?

Imagine religion is like a door. A door that leads to a bad place.
Right now that door is wide open, but we don't want people going to
that bad place, so we argue that the door should be closed.

Your response is to say that we (people) will just find another door
to open and go to that bad place.

And that is certainly true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still
try to close the doors we know about and can close!

Let's say we find a reliable method for closing the other non-
religious doors. If and when we start implementing that method, we are
still going to come to the issue of whether or not we should close the
religion door. Now you may say, "Well we'll address that issue when we
come to that situation" but I wonder why, since we have the
opportuntiy to address a known issue, we shouldn't do that?

Rather I say close the religion door and, in regards to other doors
being found and opened. we "Address those issues when we come to
them".

Basically the acknowledgement of religion as an avenue or cause of
immoral behavior is NOT, in anyway, a rejection of other avenues or
causes of immoral behavior. Nor does the existence of other avenues or
causes of immoral behavior mean we shouldn't address religion.

[Brock]

On Jul 10, 11:30 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

>
> But you don't even need to read it. I pose this question to you guys
> since it's a huge topic with tons of variables:
>
> Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?
>
> I'd be interested to hear what you guys have to say, without the
> shouting that sometimes appeared in AvC.

Hi Ted,

The best way I know to communicate my position is to reference the
doctrine of total depravity, and to understand that humankind has a
fallen, broken and incomplete spiritual nature. Because of this
"fallen-ness", humankind (outside of God's help) is in a moral and
spiritual "I've fallen and I can't get up" helplessness:

"Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of Original
Sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature
not inclined to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, as God
requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests
over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even
religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these
originate from a human imagination, passions, and will. Therefore, in
Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals into salvation
since man is incapable of choosing God.

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and
altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise."[1]

Because of this fallen sinful nature, we are all fundamentally flawed
beings. So, in context of your question:

> Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?

I would say that the answer is that the sinful and fallen nature of
humankind leads humans to do acts of confusion, and even acts of
evil. To the degree that we associate "religion" with these ideas,
one may consider this a religious issue, but I don't like the term,
because it usually lacks a specificity that would allow meaningful
exchange. Many times people can't even agree on what the term
means[2]. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
[2] My preferred definition comes from Jonathan Edwards: "What are the
distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favour with God,
and entitled to his eternal rewards? Or, which comes to the same
thing, What is the nature of true religion?" from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.vii.i.html

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.

I recently read this article on Relijournal:
http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823

The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.

Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
didn't have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
categorize ourselves some other way that we'd be just as passionate
about?

We posed this question on our own site here:
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the-sand/

But you don't even need to read it. I pose this question to you guys
since it's a huge topic with tons of variables:

Does religion kill people? Or do people kill people?

To answer the specific question, of course it's people who kill people. 

So what are the weapons that are used?

One of those weapons is religion.

The question then comes should we ban religion because it is often used as a weapon?

No, because banning it doesn't make it go away, it just makes it go underground.

What are our other options?

Education and communication. Criticizing religion openly and showing people what it's negative role has and continues to be.

I guess we can overcomplicate the issue if we choose to but in my opinion it's really quite simple.

The solution is also simple. It'll just a take a long time.

Now, if someone invents another weapon then we deal with that when it occurs.

I'd be interested to hear what you guys have to say, without the
shouting that sometimes appeared in AvC.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Ted Goas]

Interesting analogy, though I had some trouble following. Are you
saying that currently religion causes war, and once we close the
religion door we'll see if anything else causes war in its place?

-Ted

[Ted Goas]

Hi Trance, I think I am referring to religion more as a motive rather
than a weapon. Thus in theory if religion is removed from the
scenario, so is the motivation to fight.

I agree that religion will probably never disappear completely, I
tried not to hint at this. But rather taking away something that
divides humans into tribes or groups.

-Ted

On Jul 10, 1:10 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> > Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> > I recently read this article on Relijournal:
> >http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> > The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> > atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> > Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> > didn't have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> > categorize ourselves some other way that we'd be just as passionate
> > about?
>
> > We posed this question on our own site here:

> >http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

[Drafterman]

On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Interesting analogy, though I had some trouble following. Are you
> saying that currently religion causes war, and once we close the
> religion door we'll see if anything else causes war in its place?

Close. I'm saying that currently religion causes war, but other things
cause war too. Once we close the religion door we'll still have those
other things to contend with. These facts (that other things cause war
and they will exist even if we close the religion door) should not
detract or take our attention away from closing the religion door.

> > > -Ted Goashttp://www.skepticalmonkey.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

Hi Trance, I think I am referring to religion more as a motive rather
than a weapon. Thus in theory if religion is removed from the
scenario, so is the motivation to fight.

Religion plays all three roles at the same time so my comments would still apply.

It can be the motivator, the weapon and provide the method.

 

I agree that religion will probably never disappear completely, I
tried not to hint at this. But rather taking away something that
divides humans into tribes or groups.

I didn't say it would never disappear, I said it would take a long time.

[random]

On Jul 10, 10:31 pm, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Hi Trance, I think I am referring to religion more as a motive rather
> than a weapon. Thus in theory if religion is removed from the
> scenario, so is the motivation to fight.
>

I doubt that.
Religion is a mechanism that cannot be argued morally by the believers
as long as they accept the authority, which makes it an excellent tool
to encourage war.
Without doubt, it is one of the commonly used ways to make any war
seem righteous, but it is rarely the only motivation for war or the
only tool that is used. So I think it will be a bit too naive to think
that without religions the motivations will just go away.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 10, 3:43 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 10:31 pm, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Trance, I think I am referring to religion more as a motive rather
> > than a weapon. Thus in theory if religion is removed from the
> > scenario, so is the motivation to fight.
>
> I doubt that.
> Religion is a mechanism that cannot be argued morally by the believers
> as long as they accept the authority, which makes it an excellent tool
> to encourage war.
> Without doubt, it is one of the commonly used ways to make any war
> seem righteous, but it is rarely the only motivation for war or the
> only tool that is used. So I think it will be a bit too naive to think
> that without religions the motivations will just go away.

Yes, I agree that we should try and avoid oversimplifying the
situation. In that end, I shall present another overly simplistic
example!

When considering a groups motivation for violence that may include
religion we can group it into two categories based on boolean
operators:

AND and OR.

The first group would be the person's motivations are the sum of many
different variables in which religion is only a part.

The second group would be the person's motivations are singular, and
other variables (such as religion) exist, but are not a motivating
factor.

And then we have the hybrid where there are multiple motivating
factors and multiple non-motivating factors.

For the motivating factors, the solution is simple: remove them. If
religion is one, remove it.
For the non-motivating factors, the solution is not so simple. If it
is does not motivate the person, we lack a reason to remove it, right?
So if religion is not determined to be a motivator, we lack
justification in causing its removal, right?

Well, this approach raises several difficult issues. Motivations are
not necessarily static. Who is to say that religion won't become a
motivator in the future, if it is not one now?

Second, how can we address this on an individual basis? We can't.
Here's another example:

I have a wad of cash. I want to protect it from being stolen by people
who's motivation is greed. Now, not everyone is motivated by greed. So
should I:

A) Only address people whose motivation is greed on an individual
basis
or
B) Apply a blanket policy that affects everyone (such as putting it in
a safe) that protects me from anyone's greed whoever that may be, but
also protects me from people who are not motivated by greed.

Practicality and the existence of potential future threats suggests
that we address religion on a holistic manner, rather than person-by-
person.

So, it would seem that in either situation, motivated by religion or
not, its removal is warranted.

> > > Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown- Hide quoted text -

[Stephen]

S: I do not believe religion motivates violence as much as religious
differences motivates violence. Most religions teach basic ethics -
treat others how you want to be treated etc. I think different
religions tends to promote in-group, out-group dynamics rather than
universally ethical behaviour. It is natural to treat our in-group
members the way we would like to be treated, and it is natural to be
more distrustful of out-group members. Religious differences cause
these in-group/out-groups to form.

I'd like to mention that the work of Hans Kung that might be of
interest to some here. His project is basically to describe what the
world religions have in common rather than what separates them. The
motive for this is to try and decrease religiously motivated violence.
He encourages religious leaders to talk to each other. In his view,
"there will be no peace among the nations without peace among the
religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue
among the religions."

>
> -Ted Goas
> http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[random]

Is it really simple?
As (more or less) liberal democracies, we have enough trouble dealing
even with direct racism because of the right to speak, act or have an
opinion. If human rights are our main goal, fighting a more subtle
opinion like religion is even harder.

> For the non-motivating factors, the solution is not so simple. If it
> is does not motivate the person, we lack a reason to remove it, right?
> So if religion is not determined to be a motivator, we lack
> justification in causing its removal, right?
>
> Well, this approach raises several difficult issues. Motivations are
> not necessarily static. Who is to say that religion won't become a
> motivator in the future, if it is not one now?
>

Like I said in the beginning, religion is commonly used because it
gives relatively easy control on the believers, but if your reason is
to seek potential dangers, almost every seemingly harmless ideology is
on the same group as religion.

Take environmentalisms as an example: On theory, it has the potential
of creating groups of people who attack other organizations using
terror while feeling self righteous about it. Obviously, the correct
way to deal with it is to fight the problem when it arrives, and
prevent it from ever coming to that point, but certainly not fighting
regular environmentalists.

> Second, how can we address this on an individual basis? We can't.
> Here's another example:
>
> I have a wad of cash. I want to protect it from being stolen by people
> who's motivation is greed. Now, not everyone is motivated by greed. So
> should I:
>
> A) Only address people whose motivation is greed on an individual
> basis
> or
> B) Apply a blanket policy that affects everyone (such as putting it in
> a safe) that protects me from anyone's greed whoever that may be, but
> also protects me from people who are not motivated by greed.
>

Building a safe is a private solution that effects the person who
built it more than it effects anyone else. A better analogy for this
situation, owning a big mean dog in the yard, and deciding how long
the leash should be and what training should it get.
Like the dog's owner, we as a society need to be very careful about
the laws we use to protect ourselves. Make them too weak and they are
useless to defend us, make them too strong and we risk attacking
random people on the street that didn't intend to cause you any harm.

Dilemmas like that goes with the territory of wanting a liberal
country.

> Practicality and the existence of potential future threats suggests
> that we address religion on a holistic manner, rather than person-by-
> person.
>
> So, it would seem that in either situation, motivated by religion or
> not, its removal is warranted.
>

The good news, is that unlike random thieves, religions are
organizations.
When a spiritual leader crosses the line and preaches to violence, it
is usually made in public. That allows us to know exactly where the
danger is, leaving "only" the decision of what is the line that cannot
be crossed.

[Belly Bionic]

People kill people. Religion just makes it a whole lot easier for
them to do it.

Convincing average people to go to war and risk death because the
leader of their country wants the land and resources of another
country is hard. The people who'll actually be fighting that war will
more than likely be pissed about it. The leaders will have a hard
time mustering up enough volunteers, and a draft or conscription will
make the popularity of any war plummet further. Leaders need the
masses to fight their wars for them, and the masses don't want to
fight wars that only benefit those in power.

On the other hand, tell the same people that they need to go to war
because God says those other people are infidels and heretics, and
they're defiling the Holy Land that they stole from God's Chosen
People, and the masses will line up to volunteer and be happy about
it.

Eradicating religion wouldn't wipe out war entirely, but it would make
it much harder for leaders to get the people on board.

On Jul 10, 8:30 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

[Dag Yo]

> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?

Of course. But this isn't "scapegoating" of religion, religion really
does serve as a real impetus recruiting people, going to war,
needlessly sacrificing one's only life and mercilessly killing people
-- that much at least cannot really be argued with.

And yes, there is no doubt that in a pretend world devoid of religion,
people would still find secular reasons for slaughtering each other en
masse (and sometimes they do in this world anyway) but those reasons
would undoubtedly be not nearly as good "a magic man has promised you
victory, oh and don't worry about the ethics of killing other people
this world and this life isn't what matter since everyone has an
eternity in an after-life of some sort after this anyway, kill kill
kill!".

On Jul 10, 8:30 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

[Ted Goas]

Right, i do agree that an invisible man is a silly thing to fight
over. But so many people don't share our point of view.

If I make take a verse out of a Pearl Jam song ...
"Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name. But God is
nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently"

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[Ted Goas]

"People kill people. Religion just makes it a whole lot easier for
them to do it. "

Interesting point. Religion can be a socialably acceptable thing that
divides people.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[Ted Goas]

Ahh, so you're saying that war can be used to fight and JUSTIFY war. I
agree with that.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

On Jul 10, 3:43 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dag Yo]

> Right, i do agree that an invisible man is a silly thing to fight
> over. But so many people don't share our point of view.

Actually you must have misread what I wrote then. I wasn't saying
that an "invisible man" (God) is a silly thing to fight over, I was
saying that it's an absolutely fantastic thing to fight and kill over.

On Jul 14, 6:04 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Right, i do agree that an invisible man is a silly thing to fight
> over. But so many people don't share our point of view.
>
> If I make take a verse out of a Pearl Jam song ...
> "Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name. But God is
> nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently"
>

> -Ted Goashttp://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- Its people who kill people, usually bad or mislead
people. The bad would do it anyway, the mislead are mislead by the
bad, so I suppose it boils down to bad people kill people. Usually its
about power, and if religion did not exist then bad people would still
kill people, and mislead others in another cause, its just the way it
is. Bit like the scorpion the frog and the river.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure you some will, but all
mainline religions actually come out quite strongly against killing.
Its the extremists within those organizations who bray for blood when
they see an opportunity to increase their personal power over their
"followers", and their understanding of the religious teachings of
their chosen religion is usually miles away from the understanding of
the bulk of the believers within the religion they claim to represent.

Religion itself is a daft concept and a stupid thing to be part of,
and the existence of a God no more reasonable than a square triangle.
However, conservative religion is not a bad thing, neither is a gun,
they can just be the tools of unscrupulous power hungry people. Do
away with guns and man will find another way to kill, do away with
religion and man will find another reason to kill, do away with God
and man will find another Godless religion to join.

On Jul 10, 4:30 pm, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...

[4praise]

> Does religion kill people?

Most don't, there have been a few that did human sacrifices but it
made it hard to attract new members.

> or do people kill people?

Again, most don't but they will if they have to.

[attila911]

People kill people. However, they have been doing this in the "name of
religion" since the beginning of mans belief in an afterlife. This
dates back to Cro-Magnon man, who were the first to bury their dead
with objects that they appearantly believed would be of help to their
dead, either in a next life, or a journey they believed their comrade
was about to embark on.

On Jul 10, 11:30 am, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone, this is my first post in this group after following
> Belly Bionic's note over from AvC.
>
> I recently read this article on Relijournal:http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Theism-Versus-Atheism.156823
>
> The first page talks about war and religion's place in it. A common
> atheist argument is that religion causes war and is therefore bad.
>
> Sure, it can be easy to scape goat religion like this. But if we
> didn’t have differences in religious belief to fight over, would we
> categorize ourselves some other way that we’d be just as passionate
> about?
>

> We posed this question on our own site here:http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/marker-in-the...