Why do muslims have a propensity towards violence over other faiths?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

PDN has never denied that religion is used to legitimise violence.

And I didn't say that he did deny that. I objected to his "you too!" response.

JimiTime wrote: »

Pity you haven't read all those posts so. [....] If its not religion its something else. Rather than letting your bigotry cloud your judgement, why not actually try see the point thats been made.

Ach, "bigotry" again. Can't you guys ever give your persecution complexes a rest for a few days?

The point I'm made in the follow-up post is that religion is a contributory factor in societal dysfunction for the reasons I gave. To spell out the difference in simple terms:

Single-party states, whether their leaders are atheists or religious, enjoy power and frequently implement murderous policies to keep it. That's "top-down" violence and it happens whether or not there's religious input.

"Bottom-up" violence and dysfunction is the everyday stuff that you see in the shot-up seven-eleven around the corner, or your teen daughter who's having an abortion. This second kind of violence is generally much more common where levels of religious belief are high. The stats are really quite clear on this and the post above suggests a set of simple, plausible reasons why this is so.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The fact that they didn't do it the name of atheism is immaterial.

On the contrary, it suggests that atheism per se, is useless at legitimizing anything and isn't therefore, to blame for anything.

QED -- thanks.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

It's not a poor response if it is being used to point out hypocrisy.

We have posters in this thread who are piously clucking about how bad religion is because of the slaughter caused in its name. That would be fine if atheists had a wonderful humane track record. However, any reading of the history of the Twentieth Century shows that atheist regimes tend to be even more murderous than religious ones. The fact that they didn't do it the name of atheism is immaterial.

Actually I think it's quite central to the debate that is going on here.
The atheists in question committed their crimes for reasons aside from their atheism where many of the religious committed their crimes for their religion. Of course many of them used their religion as an excuse to justify doing whatever they wanted. However the fact remains that there are those who have committed horrific atrocities in the name of their religion when they would not have done so had they not been told to do so (or at least interpreted that they were being told to do so) by their religion.

Hypothetical example:
Leader: "Kill those people."
Soldier: "Why?"
Leader: "So I can consolidate my power base."
Soldier: "That doesn't sound like a very good reason."
Leader: "Okay <quotes a verse from a holy book>, See God wants us to kill those people."
Soldier: Okay then."

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

And I didn't say that he did deny that. I objected to his "you too!" response.

It wasn't a 'you too' response. it was stipulating that religion or no religion, people kill other people and do awful things. Its in response to blaming religion. Its a point to show that those with no religion do the same and worse. i.e. Its not religions fault, but mans. Sheesh, and some wanted to call atheists 'brights':p

Ach, "bigotry" again. Can't you guys ever give your persecution complexes a rest for a few days?

Well you have a bigotted view that clouds your judgement IMO. I certainly don't feel persecuted though.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a point to show that those with no religion do the same and worse

Did you read this post (four up), where I pointed out why this is only half the picture?

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not religions fault, but mans.

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

Gambler

ironingbored wrote: »

I would expect a moderator to know forum rules better than most and refrain from infantile name calling.

It wasn't intended as name calling, I apologise if you took it that way. My point was that what you were stating as fact was not true.

ironingbored wrote: »

A country who all the same elected the vile holocaust denying anti-semite Ahmadinejad. America is also full of very well eduacted and independent minded people who still voted bush in not once but twice.

What you originally said was: "Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?" and I was just replying to that by (roughly) saying "here's a list of countries that are predominantly Muslim and that ignorance and superstition doesn't prevail."

By your last reply would you say that America is predominantly ignorant and superstitious and so where christianity prevails then ignorance and superstition also seems to prevail?

I am just taking issue with your generalisation that Muslim = Evil Violence (again I am paraphrasing but it seems to me to be the core of your argument)

Zillah

I don't think its a fair comment to excuse religion by saying that people just cause violence anyway. I think a naturalistic morality based upon respect for the rights of others, informed by empathy, leads to a very balanced person. Any sort of artificially constructed morality (such as the rigid dictates of a Holy Book), authority driven leadership (such as the dominance of the Nazi party) or abdication of personal thought and responsibility (such as a cult of personality re: Stalin) will encourage the sort of violence that goes down in history.

Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.

Zillah

For the record I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything. If someone runs around stabbing homeless people in the name of Jainism I'm not going to criticise Jainism unless there is a real causal link.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

By this reckoning there was nothing really wrong with National Socialism, it was just in the hands of the wrong types of Nazis.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Did you read this post (four up), where I pointed out why this is only half the picture?

tbh, I just took exception to your accusation against PDN below. It totally misrepresented his point.

robin wrote:

PDN posts something similar every time that anybody makes the quite reasonable point that religion is used to legitimate violence.

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

All systems fail when it comes to governance. And people do too, religious, secular whatever.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

All systems fail when it comes to governance.

And do they all fail equally?

Dudess

Certain Muslims do, not Muslims in general.

Zillah

Dudess wrote: »

Certain Muslims do, not Muslims in general.

To a man, no. On average, as a group? I'd like to see the numbers.

oscarBravo

Zillah wrote: »

To a man, no. On average, as a group? I'd like to see the numbers.

Me too. And until someone comes up with numbers to actually demonstrate that the "average" Muslim has a propensity to violence, this thread is moot.

Even if such figures were to be produced, I'm not clear on what it has to do with Atheism or Agnosticism.

I'm taking the liberty of closing this thread. An A&A moderator can review and overturn this decision if they think it's a good idea. Meanwhile, if someone wants to start a new thread comparing the propensity to violence of Atheists versus Theists in general, feel free - but I can't see a justification for singling out a particular religion for criticism on this forum.