Religion IS crazy!

[SirRumpole]

It's the key and most important motive, anything else is peripheral and of much less significance and you simply don't seem to comprehend this. I choose to believe what they say about their own motives while you insist these religious fanatics must have more complex motivations, they don't.

Chose to imagine and concoct a more complex explanation if you wish but don't arrogantly assume for a moment that you are better informed than I am about the motivations of fundamentalist Islamists. I chose to believe them and you don't, let's leave it at that.

Again you judge ALL the ISIS people on the words of a few. If you want to make a judgement based on such a tiny sample size, that's up to you.

Have you ever heard the word "mercenary" at all ?

 

[Julia]

Generally, you will find it is still quite normal for society to give respect to people who are religious. for example its not unusual to hear comments when people are describing people such as, "Oh she's a good person, she goes to church" or "yeah, they are a good church going family".

A couple of decades ago I'd have agreed with you but not now. We need to simply disagree here.

It's not about intelligence, It's about what the average person thinks are good traits.

So how is your average person going to discern those good traits? Surely via a measure of intelligence, and more importantly, education. There is no reason these days for any so called average person to unthinkingly believe that because someone goes to church they are a good person. All the evidence contradicts such a supposition.

Most people are brought up to respect religion,

Again, I simply disagree. Most people I've ever met across many more years than you've yet chalked up, hold religion in no particular respect at all. Events over the past few years have only exacerbated this lack of respect, not to mention outright condemnation.

Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.

There is a widely recognised hypothesis around disaffected, ill educated young people, feeling out of place, alienated from their environment, which produces non-aligned sense of hatred, something that is easily nurtured by fire breathing preachers into a focus-driven purpose such as jihad.

Rumpole raised that many people join the military for a similar reason, ie the sense of belonging to some coherent whole. Same phenomenon applies in bikie gangs. Not necessarily only religion at all.

It's the key and most important motive, anything else is peripheral and of much less significance and you simply don't seem to comprehend this. I choose to believe what they say about their own motives while you insist these religious fanatics must have more complex motivations, they don't.

Chose to imagine and concoct a more complex explanation if you wish but don't arrogantly assume for a moment that you are better informed than I am about the motivations of fundamentalist Islamists.

Why not just accept that you have one strong belief and others have somewhat alternative beliefs?
No real need to suggest arrogance on the part of someone who just takes a different slant, surely.

Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.

A good example is the Australian whose son proudly held up the severed head. The father is a diagnosed schizophrenic.

 

[bellenuit]

 

[Value Collector]

Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.

You also said that there is a dislike for people on "the other side". Those GI's that you pointed out cheering at the drone strikes are all religious are they ? As an ex soldier and not a religious person, what would you have killed for ? Not religion obviously, so there must be "something else".

Maybe some ISIS people joined because "they wanted to be part of something big, and to make a contribution". Just like some others who join militaries.

So I have provided several reasons why there are wars going on that provide motivations not dependent on religion.

And please don't misrepresent what I say, it does you no credit.

You asked what I would kill for, now if i told you, would you believe me, or just say, no no, it must be something else.

The soldiers calling in the air strikes were not praying as they did it, they didn't call them in to drop the bomb in jesuses name, so I wouldn't assume that, but when the group has an open religious name eg Isis, we have to believe them, unless you have some other evidence of other motives.

Yes there are psychopaths, but not in the large numbers seen supporting Isis, also the psychopaths can only operate if the sane men stand by and do nothing, and its religion that convinces them to stand by and let the greater "good" happen

 

[SirRumpole]

You asked what I would kill for, now if i told you, would you believe me, or just say, no no, it must be something else.

I'm afraid you fail to honestly read my posts. I'm simply saying that there are other motives for joining militias than religion, but religion is obviously the motive for some.

Mercenaries fight in a lot of wars. Do they have to have a religious belief to do that ?

If you don't want to answer the question I asked, that's up to you. I don't care one way or the other.

 

[FxTrader]

Why not just accept that you have one strong belief and others have somewhat alternative beliefs? No real need to suggest arrogance on the part of someone who just takes a different slant, surely

I don't have a strong belief about the motivations of religious extremists; I just accept what they say about their own motivations for their actions. If an apologist for religion asserts that other motivations are in play of equal importance to religious convictions then where is the evidence for this "belief"? The apologist claims the primary motivation can't be just religion it can also be mercenaries beheading people for money and hoards of mentally ill people with Kalashnikovs dressed in black - how absurd. It is arrogance to presume to know better than the perpetrators themselves what their motivations are and produce no evidence to support such a view.

There is a widely recognised hypothesis around disaffected, ill educated young people, feeling out of place, alienated from their environment, which produces non-aligned sense of hatred, something that is easily nurtured by fire breathing preachers into a focus-driven purpose such as jihad.

Rumpole raised that many people join the military for a similar reason, ie the sense of belonging to some coherent whole. Same phenomenon applies in bikie gangs. Not necessarily only religion at all.

Whatever the background of an ISIS fighter, religion unites them around a common cause and empowers them with the moral justification to perform acts of vicious violence and murder with the promise of paradise through martyrdom. Without a religious foundation, their actions would be that of fractious groupings of rebels waring with each other for territorial power.

ISIS stated intention is to form an Islamic Caliphate and this is a rallying point for Muslims around the world to such an extent that we see thousands of foreign fighters being recruited for this cause. Not only do I believe them when they say this, their actions are consistent with their stated intentions. Religion and religious unity are the poison at the core of this movement and this needs to be clearly understood by apologists for religion.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is arrogance to presume to know better than the perpetrators themselves what their motivations are and produce no evidence to support such a view.

It is arrogance to believe that you know the motivations of EVERY person fighting in that conflict. Religion is obviously a motive for some, but you can't say it is for all.

I think that you are just completely anti religion and will blame religion solely for every ill in the world.

You don't acknowledge that a lust for power, psychopathy, hatred of other tribes, desire for land and resources or money play any part at all.

Well, keep your bigoted opinions, but wars happen for factors other than religion and if you can't see that, then that is your problem.

 

[FxTrader]

It is arrogance to believe that you know the motivations of EVERY person fighting in that conflict. Religion is obviously a motive for some, but you can't say it is for all.

Indeed I don't claim to know all the motivations of every ISIS fighter, only the publically stated motivations of the movement and individual supporters. Their actions confirm their intentions and stated motives. You continue to assert that other motives are of equal significance to religion in this conflict without evidence and have deluded yourself into thinking you have a strong argument in the process.

I think that you are just completely anti religion and will blame religion solely for every ill in the world.

What a silly, emotive statement. Your thinking is wrong, I regard religion for what it is - myth. People taking myth to seriously and acting accordingly on the dictates of religious dogma is a serious problem for human society, the consequences of which are manifest daily around the globe. You would have to be intellectually deficient, unobservant or indoctrinated not to acknowledge this.

You don't acknowledge that a lust for power, psychopathy, hatred of other tribes, desire for land and resources or money play any part at all.

Only the contrary I do acknowledge other factors are in play but the powerful unifying factor is religion. That you are in denial about this is quite clear.

Well, keep your bigoted opinions, but wars happen for factors other than religion and if you can't see that, then that is your problem.

The refuge of a tireless apologist for religion and the crimes committed in its name, call me a bigot because I point out that religion, in all its mutually intolerant forms, is the core unifying force for a movement like ISIS. Keep your head buried the sand if you wish and in doing so stay far away from Iraq and Syria where you can be killed for not believing in the right version of Islam and for no other reason.

 

[SirRumpole]

Keep your head buried the sand if you wish and in doing so stay far away from Iraq and Syria where you can be killed for not believing in the right version of Islam and for no other reason.

That is an important point. When it comes down to variants of the same religion fighting each other this indicates that there is something else other than the religion being the primary motivating cause. It then comes down to tribalism, or a dislike for other points of view, whatever they are.

As for believing the stated motives of the ISIS fighters, did it occur to you that a psychopath is hardly likely to publicly state "I'm going to fight in Iraq because I like killing people", he is more likely to come up with a plausible excuse like "I'm going to help my brothers defend their homeland and save the lives of my family" etc.

So taking what these people say on face value is a trifle naive I think.

Only the contrary I do acknowledge other factors are in play but the powerful unifying factor is religion. That you are in denial about this is quite clear.

Maybe you are missing the point that religion could be an excuse, not a reason, for some anyway.

 

[SirRumpole]

Atheist US Air Force sergeant to take military to court over requirement to take oath with 'so help me God'

I'm with the sergeant on this, if you don't believe in God, your oath is worthless

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/atheist-must-swear-to-god-or-leave-us-air-force/5732994

 

[bellenuit]

Atheist US Air Force sergeant to take military to court over requirement to take oath with 'so help me God'

I'm with the sergeant on this, if you don't believe in God, your oath is worthless

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/atheist-must-swear-to-god-or-leave-us-air-force/5732994

It is not the fact that it is worthless that I see as the problem here. It is being asked to state those words in a country whose constitution demands separation of church and state.

 

[Value Collector]

Mercenaries fight in a lot of wars. Do they have to have a religious belief to do that ?
.

Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?

No, I haven't.

what I have said is that religion is the cause of a lot of conflicts, (not all) and the religious conflicts tend to drag on for generations due to the non-negotiable position of the religious dogma, and the fact that people know their god is on their side.

 

[Value Collector]

That is an important point. When it comes down to variants of the same religion fighting each other this indicates that there is something else other than the religion being the primary motivating cause. .

they are not really the same religion, Sunni and Shiites, are like Protestants and Catholics, they believe some of the same things, but are different religions, and have through out history fought each other.

 

[SirRumpole]

Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?

No, I haven't.

Oh, ok then, so you just delight in making ad hominen attacks like this:

Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.

for fun ?

 

[Value Collector]

Oh, ok then, so you just delight in making ad hominen attacks like this:

Firstly, how is this

Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.

an ad hominen? an hominem attack is when you attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. at no point was I attacking your character or a personal trait.

I said

Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?

Because you kept asking things like, do mercenaries fight for religion? what religion are they fighting about in the Ukraine?

As if I at some stage had said that all conflicts are caused by religion, which I haven't, offcourse not all wars are directly related to religion. my position has always been that a lot of them are, not all, and that when the divide involves religion, it can make a conflict drag out for generations, which other wise would be resolved.

My recent comments have been in relation to you claiming that religion is not the main cause for the current ISIS conflict, even though the people involved are claiming it is, they are killing based on religion, and they call them selves the "Islamic" state.

 

[pixel]

...It then comes down to tribalism, or a dislike for other points of view, whatever they are. ...

Tribalism is the basic root of all religious beliefs:
Humans are social animals because it was essential for the survival of the extended family/ clan/ tribe - call it what you like - that each individual would defend the tribal hunting grounds and territory.
When the apes grew brains and began to reason some basics, the smarter group members may well have recognised that and devised some ruses to keep the dimmer ones in line. What could be closer at hand than inventing ghosts and superior beings that demanded obedience and became grumpy (with thunder and lightning as reinforcement) when teenage dumbo cast an eye where he shouldn't. Keeping the family members in line by such basic mental persuasion made it far easier to maintain the Patriarch's position without having to resort to fights every time a horny youngster with more hormones than brains craved a piece of the Chief's harem. He was told how honourable it was to look at them from afar, defend them by defending the King, and wait his turn; if he behaved himself and stayed devoted to God, King, and Tribe, then his time would come in Paradise/ Eden/ Valhalla to get his full contingent of houris, maidens, wenches to feast on and with to his lusty desires.

The problem starts when these fanciful creations are perpetuated in folklore; and once fairytales are injected into every kid's brain, and parents are admonished to bring their offspring up "in the one and only true faith", it becomes "the one and only truth" for the overwhelming majority. The few independent thinkers will quickly find out that it's safer to pay lip service and rub the customary mud into their own navels, than to try and persuade their dimmer neighbours of a different truth.

So, what started out as a plot to support one tribal chief with the bigger dung heap over any neighbouring tribe's ambition to increase theirs, has become ingrained in tribal members' minds to the extent we see today: Priests, Rabbis, Muftis, ... each have reasons of their own to maintain the status quo. Sure beats working in the mud or fighting for one's living. Much easier to keep teaching "the one and only true faith" to the dimmer sections of the tribe; and if you can prevent budding intellect from growing and thinking, you've got it even easier.

Is there really a difference between "No education for girls" and "No women priests"?

Keep 'em dumb and on their backs. Our tribe must outbreed all others. Our dung heap is the biggest.

PS: Wars aren't necessarily fought over religion. I believe the main reason for wars is tribal greed: The dung heap needs to be increased at all cost. And the more an ever-increasing dung heap benefits the key members of the ruling class/ family/ hangers-on, the more likely it will be supported by the religious leaders. IMHO it's only at that stage that religious doctrine is bent into shape to be used to turn younger family members into killing machines and cannon fodder.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nice summary pixel, I think you are spot on there.

Religion may have been needed once to keep things in order, but now that we have ordered systems of government and law enforcement (mostly), religion's value to society is diminishing. There is little we can do constitutionally to outlaw it, we can just hope it fades out in time.

 

[pixel]

Nice summary pixel, I think you are spot on there.

Religion may have been needed once to keep things in order, but now that we have ordered systems of government and law enforcement (mostly), religion's value to society is diminishing. There is little we can do constitutionally to outlaw it, we can just hope it fades out in time.

I'm not quite that optimistic, Sir R.
Remember that, by definition, half of any country's population has an IQ that's average or less

Also, the US system of government would have to be considered as "ordered", yet you still have the Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and the Religions of Wall Street and Las Vegas dominating hearts and minds.

Not to mention the Middle East, vast parts of Africa and Asia, and most of South America, where people are kept poor and persuaded to keep breeding, so they can't afford to study or even think. Instead, they're told it's all God's/ Allah's will that they submit to their lot, pay homage and support to their religious leaders, and wait for their time in Paradise, which in reality will be six foot under, if that deep.

 

[bunyip]

Tribalism is the basic root of all religious beliefs:
Humans are social animals because it was essential for the survival of the extended family/ clan/ tribe - call it what you like - that each individual would defend the tribal hunting grounds and territory.
When the apes grew brains and began to reason some basics, the smarter group members may well have recognised that and devised some ruses to keep the dimmer ones in line. What could be closer at hand than inventing ghosts and superior beings that demanded obedience and became grumpy (with thunder and lightning as reinforcement) when teenage dumbo cast an eye where he shouldn't. Keeping the family members in line by such basic mental persuasion made it far easier to maintain the Patriarch's position without having to resort to fights every time a horny youngster with more hormones than brains craved a piece of the Chief's harem. He was told how honourable it was to look at them from afar, defend them by defending the King, and wait his turn; if he behaved himself and stayed devoted to God, King, and Tribe, then his time would come in Paradise/ Eden/ Valhalla to get his full contingent of houris, maidens, wenches to feast on and with to his lusty desires.

The problem starts when these fanciful creations are perpetuated in folklore; and once fairytales are injected into every kid's brain, and parents are admonished to bring their offspring up "in the one and only true faith", it becomes "the one and only truth" for the overwhelming majority. The few independent thinkers will quickly find out that it's safer to pay lip service and rub the customary mud into their own navels, than to try and persuade their dimmer neighbours of a different truth.

So, what started out as a plot to support one tribal chief with the bigger dung heap over any neighbouring tribe's ambition to increase theirs, has become ingrained in tribal members' minds to the extent we see today: Priests, Rabbis, Muftis, ... each have reasons of their own to maintain the status quo. Sure beats working in the mud or fighting for one's living. Much easier to keep teaching "the one and only true faith" to the dimmer sections of the tribe; and if you can prevent budding intellect from growing and thinking, you've got it even easier.

Is there really a difference between "No education for girls" and "No women priests"?

Keep 'em dumb and on their backs. Our tribe must outbreed all others. Our dung heap is the biggest.

PS: Wars aren't necessarily fought over religion. I believe the main reason for wars is tribal greed: The dung heap needs to be increased at all cost. And the more an ever-increasing dung heap benefits the key members of the ruling class/ family/ hangers-on, the more likely it will be supported by the religious leaders. IMHO it's only at that stage that religious doctrine is bent into shape to be used to turn younger family members into killing machines and cannon fodder.

I'm not quite that optimistic, Sir R.
Remember that, by definition, half of any country's population has an IQ that's average or less

Also, the US system of government would have to be considered as "ordered", yet you still have the Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and the Religions of Wall Street and Las Vegas dominating hearts and minds.

Not to mention the Middle East, vast parts of Africa and Asia, and most of South America, where people are kept poor and persuaded to keep breeding, so they can't afford to study or even think. Instead, they're told it's all God's/ Allah's will that they submit to their lot, pay homage and support to their religious leaders, and wait for their time in Paradise, which in reality will be six foot under, if that deep.

I'd say that's a pretty good summary, Pixel.

What intrigues me is why people of even average intelligence can't think independently enough to question the religious dogma they're brought up with.
I was brought up in a Christian family that had me going to church and Sunday school every Sunday of my childhood, taking bible study lessons, believing that God was loving and compassionate and righteous, always ready, willing and able to help his followers out when they needed a hand.
My wife was brought up in a strongly Catholic family in Ireland, was indoctrinated with all the usual Catholic rituals and hoo-ha from an early age. Yet long before we met, both of us were thinking independently enough to question and doubt the religious beliefs we were raised with, until finally we rejected them as nonsense.
Neither of us is a radical of extraordinary intelligence – we’re just level-headed, sensible people who think things through and make up our own minds, rather than believing something because it was taught to us and is the accepted majority view.
Why do so many people seem to have trouble doing this – why is independent thinking so difficult for them – I just don’t get it.

 

[SirRumpole]

My recent comments have been in relation to you claiming that religion is not the main cause for the current ISIS conflict, even though the people involved are claiming it is, they are killing based on religion, and they call them selves the "Islamic" state.

Well, I think it's possible that these loonies are really just after money and power and use religion as the excuse to get it.

Like Hitler used "lebensraum" as his justification for expansion and enslavement.

You can make people follow you if you have a plausible excuse to delude them with. It doesn't mean you actually have to believe the excuse.

And furthermore, your use of the word "religion" as an all encompassing term is too broad. Why don't you refer to Islamic militants, as they are the people causing the problems ? Would you call the people you may work with who go to church on Sunday "terrorists" ?