PastorAIO:
So .. like... are you saying that we are to dismiss all of human history up until Stalinist USSR, ie up until the middle of the 20th century? You'll not admit anything before then into our discussion? War was the norm then. I wonder, Would you be willing to absolve all the religious wars before this period too?

you forgot a few more exceptions ... Except if it is to bring democracy to the Iraq. Except if it is to bring democracy to Libya. Except if it is to topple the government of Syria. Except except except. ... except it is to topple the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Or Except it is to protect the Saudi ruling family who are friends of the US. EXCEPT..EXCEPT..EXCEPT.
In fact if my memory serves me correctly, most of the aggression from the middle east (except maybe ISIL) are not done on religious grounds, in order to spread religion, but rather as a reaction to US Israeli aggression and foreign policy in the region.

You're flailing about here. I'm interested in discussing violence that is caused by religion or religious scripture. Leave friendliness safest and best etc out of it.

joseph1013:

[b]
I can see that you have tacitly decided not to change your position despite telling you that places that are non-religious do not generally have as much violence as places that are deeply religious.

Again, that's interesting. If you say that people are inherently evil and that there will still be as much evil without religion then how do you explain that this is not the case in practice. Why do we not have as many religious countries in the top peaceful countries as we do have non-religious countries?[/b]

I have explained this to you through personal experience. I have given you examples of countries. I will refer you again to a place like Saudi Arabia. Muslim regard it as the Holy Land. Why do we have several human rights abuses and outright violent acts against people who do not want to associate with their barbaric ways? You think religion is not the reason the country is the way it is? I can see that you dont like Harris, I dont care about him one way or the other, but based on the realities on ground, it is difficult to fault religion for alot of needless violence, underdevelopment and several human right abuses.

Really? Zionism does not have religious leaders? What about Yehuda Amital, Shlomo Aviner, She'ar Yashuv Cohen, Mordechai Eliyahu, Meir Kahane, Zvi Yehuda Kook. So many names. Please do yourself a favor and read up on religious Zionism.

When I say it is opened to interpretation, I mean that just like Christianity, Judaism also has alot of sects with various interpretations of the Torah. You get my drift? They use their interpretations to forward their objectives. Well, some will argue that the scriptures urge them to do that which they do.

And please, who told you that your 'orthodox' Jews do not have a history of violence? Ever heard of the “chastity squad”?

Look, you can let your dislike for Harris colour your world all you like, but there is no gainsaying that alot of people who would have lived better lives are currently brainwashed into thinking that fighting and adhering to the dictates of scriptures would have an eternity of bliss.

joseph1013:


Right now, I can not decide whether you are reading my statements as I write them or you're reading what I think I wrote. I already told you that while religion is not the only cause of violence in our world, it is a channel and a big outlet. If we remove religion from the equation, we will definitely have a better world. Again, refer to my examples of places that are less religious. Fair enough?

Agreed. A country like the US does what it does for political reasons and often to protect its sovereignty. Again, you are reading what you want to read. So I ask you again: do you think those young girls in the North East would still want to kill themselves and thousands of others if they have not been brainwashed or threatens with violence. How does the activities of the US nullify my position?

Then you're not ready for a discussion for I do not know how you can discuss violence and not talk about peace as a corollary.

joseph1013:
PastorAIO, Reading through this discussion again, I see that we have been going around in circles sort of. I would love to further engage you, therefore I'd like to know in plain terms what your position is.

Let me try and summarize what I think you're saying:

You agree with me that religion is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without religion there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called religion.

Is my summary correct?

Interesting you'd call calling out the harm in religion bashing though.

PastorAIO:


Substitute Technology for religion in the summary you wrote above and this is what you get:

You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.

What I am wary of is this ideology that promises an utopia of Non violence that will be achieved after religion has been abolished. It is a lie, and the historical facts tell us precisely that it is a lie. Of course this ideology seeks to support it's claims by cherry picking cases where non religious societies are not aggressive, and ignoring cases where they are. People like your Sam Harris are prime exponents of this crap and they are so transparent to me, though not to many others who follow them.

joseph1013:


[b]Technology and religion? Are you comparing myths and legends with technology? You don't think that's a ridiculous analogy? For starters, why not look at the pros and the cons and let's compare notes.

But if that's the path you want to tow, by all means let me indulge you.

YES! People are always speaking out against the ills of technology and their voices are heard. That's why there is constant improvements all round in how technology is used. Nuclear energy, a product of technology, is being regulated. Transportation systems are being tested and observed from time to time. Tell me about an outlet of violence that you think technology is put to and I'll tell you how people have spoken against it and how that has led to a better world.

I still think you're so focused on your dislike for Harris that you are reading what you think I wrote and not what I actually wrote. I will ring it to your hearing again that I do not think violence in our world will stop when religious violence is brought to the barest minimum by people taking scriptures less and less seriously. I can quote several places in this discussion that I have said that already. I wonder why you choose to ignore them.

What I know is that we will have a better and a safer world when and if that giant outlet of violence is closed and its influence reduced. The same way we'll have a safer world when political violence is halted or when ethnic violence is stopped.

Your position of not speaking out against one source of violence, a big source at that, is tantamount to saying what is the need in equipping our secondary schools as a means of turning around our decaying educational system when inadequate educational materials is not the only cause of the poor performance of Nigerian students in public examinations.[/b]

PastorAIO:
My brother, all I required of you is to say yes or no. Is that statement above valid? Yes or no?

I'll repeat the statement:

You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.


Compare the number of fatalities in the First World War to the number of fatalities in the Napoleonic wars. Millions compared to tens and hundreds of thousands. That is all due to technology. If you removed technology from warfare people would still go to war but the number of fatalities and the violence of the Wars will be very much reduced. Technology did not cause the war, but it served as a channel for facilitating violence on a scale we previously couldn't even imagine.

Since the First World War there has been an arms race to create ever more destructive technological power. Obviously technology has it's positive uses to and these are developed too.

I've not heard you say that Violence will not end when religion is abolished. I have not seen you address those places or times when religion has been abolished and violence increased. Even internal violence, not war. Your excuse was that War was the norm in those days and everybody fought wars. Well what about The Terror in France. That was violence perpetuated on it's own citizens by an atheist state.

joseph1013:


Again, you've started going around in circles. I would think the answer to your question had been addressed in my last comment.

I will repeat it: Yes, technology was used in the first world war and it resulted into a lot of casualties. Even in the Second World War.And then what happened? People spoke against it and are still speaking against technology being used to wipe people off instead of bettering the lives of humans. That has led to better lives for the majority of the citizens of the world.

PastorAIO:


I don't believe I'm going round in circles. I'm am focussed on one point which I've stated explicitly and buttressed in every subsequent post.

I quote: I agree with you that religion is a 'channel and a big outlet' for violence, but I disagree that it is a cause, whether an only cause or not.
Furthermore the only way you're gonna remove religion and create this your better world might be to lobotomise every human being when they are born. Then we'll walk around peacefully, if like zombies.

Religion is not a cause of violence the same way that technology is NOT a cause of violence. It might facilitate violence, but it is not the Cause. If you seriously want to investigate the causes of violence then we can do so.
Nobody tries to abolish technology because of how it has been used for violence. Societies still pursue technological progress. Why then do you try to abolish religion because of how it has facilitated violence? Why call it the cause when it is obviously not the cause? Violence will stop when you remove the cause.
Then I also make the point that religion is integrally linked to human nature and that the only way to remove it is to lobotomise every baby when they are born. I have no idea how you plan to eradicate religion without understanding the root source of it in our psyche.

joseph1013:


I didnt think I was going to say this but you're as dogmatic as a religious zealot. Have I been talking (or writing) to a brick wall all this while?

Did you read this:

Everyone knows about religious violence and how people give literal meanings to writings done in the stone age to inflict pains. And people like me say, look, let people not take these books seriously. The more you take these books less seriously, the more accepting and accommodating you become to other beliefs that are not in tandem to yours. That without broadening your horizon in secular knowledge, you have no way of looking beyond your immediate environment.



Now that I have pointed it out again, what do you understand by it?[/color]

PastorAIO:

I agree that there are problems with believing the bible and Koran literarily. That doesn't mean that those that do so are serious students of the bible.
They are no more likely to be 'more accepting and accomodating' to those of different beliefs than you are to others of different beliefs, for example theists.

joseph1013:


Then you believe religious indoctrination plays no role in making people behave violently to others of a different belief?

PastorAIO:


I didn't say that it plays no role. You're putting words in my mouth. I said that it wasn't the cause. Indoctrination of all sorts, religious and otherwise, can play a role in how violent someone will behave towards others.

joseph1013:
And when the indoctrination is removed, the person will still become violent?

PastorAIO:


Someone can still be violent without any intentional indoctrination, yes. Are you denying this, or you think all violence is due to indoctrination?

joseph1013:


Well, when I was a Christian, I believed in Eternal Security, which was a concept of Once Saved Forever Saved. A couple of holes in that doctrine. There is alot of holes in Once Saved NOT Always Saved too. It all depends on the verses of scriptures you want to cherry-pick. So if you are of the Eternal Security sect, you believe I'll always be a Christian, good for you.

You could not understand why the attitude of Christians could be so important? Really? Have you ever being the only Black in a White-dominated school? Then you know why it takes alot of time to get used to the glare and stare.



One of the many interesting things about theists is their many assumptions of atheists. Like they do about almost things, they think they know all the reasons atheists do what they do, EXCEPT the reasons atheists themselves give.

Why should we seek the validation of religionists? And how does religion leave a vacuum. You have no idea the freedom being without appealing to a Sky-daddy gives.

I can experience the wonder of studying the strata of the earth, fossils, the evolutionary tree, the coalescing of interstellar dust into stars and planets, and human and animal psychology. I can delight in how the pieces of the puzzle fit together, rather than attributing it all to a magical creation event, which, in its attempt to explain everything, explains only what God did in his inscrutable ways, not how or why he might have done it.

It's fascinating and gratifying to explore why we are plagued with parasites, why men are more eager to have sex than women, why men are more prone to violence than women, why babies have a grasping instinct, why we have toenails, why we crave sweet and fatty foods and become obese, why we gossip, why trees bear fruit, why attractive and fragrant flowers exist, why birds sing, and why there are so many human languages.

Pondering the evolutionary underpinnings of these phenomena is far more satisfying than reading about a talking serpent in a garden or about the Tower of Babel or hearing, "That's just the way God made it." Perhaps it's due to my inquisitive nature, but I've always been more fascinated by "why" and "how" questions than "what" questions.

joseph1013:
But not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled will still be violent?

PastorAIO:


And how does this help your case?

Crispels:





what do you call someone who does NOT believe in religions but believes in the existence of a supreme being??

joseph1013:


That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:

Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

AllNaijaBlogger:
PastorAIO VS Joseph1013


Your discussion is like that of a boxing match between two defensive (counter-attacking) boxers. Defensive boxers like to go around in circles testing the strength of their opponents and waiting for an opening to pound sense into the opponent.


The argument has been funny all along- two guys in round 8 (over how many pages?) going round in circles looking to trap the other in verbal victory.

PastorAIO:


I think you are trying to say that if indoctrination is removed and the person stops being violent then that proves that religion causes violence. Perhaps this is not what you're trying to say but if it is then it's an obvious fail.

joseph1013:


I simply need you to answer the question.

joseph1013:

That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:
Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

Patricia Campbell Hearst (born February 20, 1954), now known as Patricia Hearst-Shaw, is the granddaughter of American publishing magnate Randolph Hearst, who became nationally known for events following her kidnapping. In 1974 while she was a 19 year old student living in Berkeley, California, Hearst was abducted by a left-wing terrorist group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army. Isolated and threatened with death, she was brainwashed into supporting their cause, making propaganda announcements for them and taking part in illegal activities. Hearst was found 19 months after her kidnapping, by which time she was a fugitive wanted for serious crimes. She was held in custody, despite speculation that her family's resources would prevent her spending time in jail. At trial the prosecution made Hearst's character and sexual morality an issue, suggesting that she had not been raped while being held prisoner by the SLA. She was found guilty of bank robbery. Her conviction and long prison sentence were widely seen as unjust, but the procedural correctness of her trial was upheld by the courts. Hearst's sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter, and she was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. Hearst may have suffered from Stockholm syndrome,[1] named for a hostage situation in Sweden that occurred the previous year.

PastorAIO:


lol. okay.



It is in fact true that when some people have their indoctrination 'removed' that they may become non violent. A great example of this is Patty Hearst. She was kidnapped at 19, indoctrinated and became a violent armed robber. After she was rescued she never committed violent crime again and was in fact pardoned by Bill Clinton.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hearst

This is a great example of of what I think you mean.

joseph1013:


Any kind of indoctrination that brings about negative implications and physical harm can be 'removed', be it religious, political, cultural. Is that a guarantee that it WILL improve the person such that no other vice will be committed by the person involved? NO. But is it worth a try? You bet!

PastorAIO:

Great! But it would be going too far to try to abolish any ideological activity, be it 'religious, political, cultural.' Perhaps a more sophisticated investigation of how the violence is educed is called for. a scalpel rather than an hacksaw such as we have been using so far.
ps. Could there be possibly useful positive means to which indoctrinating violence could be applied too? For instance in the training for soldiers or a National guard in order to defend a population. Using Nationalism as an ideology to make soldiers hate other nations, and desire to kill them.

joseph1013:


[b]I wouldn't say positive, but it would certainly be beneficial to indoctrinate a group of individuals may be to increase the productivity of a firm. A group of people who are indoctrinated so as to work in perfect cohesion would definitely be an asset to a firm, an army (as was illustrated by Adolf Hitler) and any other forum of teamwork.

However, considering the matter subjectively, the associated disadvantage is the partial (and in some cases, absolute) destruction of the people's existence. As the book "1984" by "George Orwell" clearly demonstrates, the after effects of a man living in repression are horrific.

Furthermore, I would add that on the whole, indoctrination would probably never be an all round positive thing because as long as the persons involved do not question their teacher and think for themselves, it is a basic violation of the principles along which a person lives.

A person who lives his life at the directions of another person is effectively dead, and is equivalent to a chair or a table. On the other hand, it gives a person complete power over another. A large number of people will blame this conditioning of the mind to account for "Terrorism", who are known for their dedication and single minded approach towards their beliefs.[/b]

PastorAIO:
I wonder if we can make a distinction between indoctrination and plain old upbringing.
In other words, can we make a difference between how someone is brought up and indoctrination? Is everyone that is brought up in a society not indoctrinated in one way or the other? Without indoctrination would we just be feral?