Not that there's anything good about this, but hearing that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins "resigned" from whatever honorary positions they had with the FFRF rather made my heart sink.

I was a linguistics student for a time, and Pinker's books always had a sociolinguistic aspect to them, but I never saw transphobia. It was admittedly a while back, so it really wasn't yet settling into the national consciousness.

I also admired Dawkins' writing style; again, I saw nothing transphobic.

So for both of these guys to be like "nope, you should have totally kept a piece up that says transwomen should have fewer rights and options" is, maybe, the final insult of 2024.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LEVI@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

No religion is inherently worse than another.

That's not what we're discussing, perhaps you should ask where the evil comes from? maybe then you'll start getting some explanations on why people do these 'massacres and evil shit', people are not sitting around doing nothing, and then suddenly being like: "Oh we should commit massacres in the name of <insert religion's name here>.why ? because <insert God's name here> said so"

And then people with surface level knowledge ( no offense 🥺🙏 ), come and say: "They're doing it in the name of " and they repeat what other people with surface level knowledge say: "these people don't represent real "

had everyone asked the right questions, such as the one I asked you to ask, the source of evil, the evil behind all the 'massacres and evil shit', wouldn't have been lost in the noise of the blame games, such as someone's age, or personal grift..

If you're not willing to dig deep ( like Dawkins did ) in the history the culture and most importantly the teachings of , then you wouldn't understand why said religion is always associated with massacres and evil shit, and you wouldn't understand why followers of that religion would commit those atrocities

Finally, I'll also add that humans aren't inherently evil, which is what your approach suggests, humans are influenced by their environment, humans copy, learn, obey.. And Religion takes advantage of their obedience... by threats, fearmongering, torture and executions..

The question that you just asked is the wrong one, thank you and have a nice day.

[–] ManithaNeyam@beehaw.org 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If I understand your argument, it is as follows, "Certain religious entities are responsible for the worst terrorist attacks and crimes against humanity in the modern era. Therefore, the content of the religious teachings of those religions must be responsible for the motivation to commit said attacks."

If this is the case, then if I were to provide one of two counter examples, the burden of proof now comes back to you.

Counter-example 1 - Take a religion well known for its fundamentally peaceful texts, and see how it can still be twisted to commit terrorism(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
Counter-example 2 - Take a region with principally members of Religion A, see how many terrorist incidents were committed in said region(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Indonesia), compare it with another region of similar population with principally members of Religion B(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)

In the end, the actual texts of religions does not matter, people will use the text to justify whatever nonsense they already believe. If people actually believed in even an ounce of their religious texts, capitalist Christians and violent Hindutva groups could not exist.

[–] LEVI@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Before I get to your counter-arguments, I must comment on your general stance since it strikes me as a bit contradicting, let's start from where we don't agree and then go to where we might agree,(although it should be the opposite but ok) let's see:

Where we don't agree:

In the end, the actual texts of religions does not matter, people will use the text to justify whatever nonsense they already believe in

this actually doesn't make any sense from a common sense perspective basically, people are not just sitting around and deciding on their own to commit crimes and justify it with their religious scriptures later, even just saying that makes you want to take a look at those scriptures, doesn't this alone makes you at least suspect that the scripture has to do something with their actions, I mean you just said this

people will use the text to justify whatever nonsense they already believe in

That's the contradiction, as a detective/doctor who wants to cure Humanity from evil you have to suspect every element of the equation, not dismiss it… Especially if that element is the core component of the equation, I'll explain why below

Where we agree on

Certain religious entities are responsible for the worst terrorist attacks and crimes against humanity in the modern era

Not just in the modern era, across history and it goes back all the way to the founding figures of these religions, why do you think that in this modern day and age, religious people dress the way they dress, slay a sheep or goat every year, pray a number of times at specific times each day... and all these kinds of rituals... God isn't talking to them now, he isn't sending more prophets... So how do they know what to do? Priests/Imams tell them what to do... Yes... But how do they know... they're getting it from somewhere, right? An original scripture (Quran/Bible/Torah...etc.)… which bring us to your first argument.

Take a religion well known for its fundamentally peaceful texts, and see how it can still be twisted to commit terrorism

The issue is not of who's making the twisting, the issue is that the text as peaceful as it might be, IS STILL Twist-ABLE, which doesn't indicate that a Divine authority with infinite wisdom wrote it in the first place, does it? God doesn't make mistakes, right? How could he fuc* it up so bad… Like you could avoid controversial lines, bruh… annnnd avoid genocides that took place over centuries, avoid entire civilizations, minorities, cultures, tribes being wiped out off the face of the earth because they don't share the same beliefs

I'm not denying that people do twist the scripture and use it to manipulate people, "scholars" in Saudi Arabia for example keep making forbidden things allowed when it comes to their king… But there's more into it than just powerful people and rich sheikhs and priests

I used to look at my old religion as the absolute truth, I read its scriptures and thought it was flawless, and only a Deity could have written it, despite also reading the clear, straightforward, blunt, grossly honest, explicit commands and orders to kill Jews, or to beat up women, harm gay people...just a few examples

Here's the thing, in any religious society there are Categories of people, from the least conservative (progressives) to the most conservatives to the extreme fundamentalists, the great misconception people have about religion, is that people misinterpret the scripture and then become extremists, nope... like I said I used to read (explicit not vague) extreme passages that incite violence and still thought there's nothing wrong with the text, there's no hate speech, and that my religion was perfect… so what's happening here?

The answer is people don't actually follow the teachings of their religion to the letter, they're just happy being conservatives, it already gives them all they need, a sense of unity, protection and that they're part of something bigger... and then there is the serious minorities (AKA the fundamentalists) who take their stuff Seriously, and they'll follow every single order with "blind faith" (being sarcastic)

a religion can have all the ethics in the world written on its pages, but the mere fact that it has passages that incite violence (even if it was just a single page) shows it's not worthy of following, because it was enough to make a group of people carry firearms and go on a killing spree, or drive a car through the crowds or bomb themselves, and at many points in history, it moved armies to kill other armies and erase civilizations

if you were planning to convert to the approach of looking of what people say and do is a very flawed approach (I just explained why, it's the Categories of religious people, fundamentalists, conservatives, progressives... Etc) and you're setting yourself up for great disappointment, and you'll feel tricked when you find out the truth.

So the best approach, since it's the most logical one, is to go to the official sources to read what it says and what's it all about, and you'll be surprised to know that some religions (e.g. Islam) require you to read the Quran otherwise you won't know how to pray, and therefore you won't go to heaven, you see the importance of scripture, without it, you're already disqualified. So how could you say? :

the actual texts of religions does not matter

And guess what ?

It's just so happens that ALL terrorist groups that I'm aware of, they do things by the book, the way they kill, the way they execute, they way they talk, the way they look, they didn't invent a thing, it's all already written in a book, and they're just following holy orders that will get them into heaven

And when you open that book, you'll see that They're copying the founder(s)'s of that religion own doings (crimes)…

You say that you wish they took their beliefs Seriously, I take it you mean the good parts, in that, I'm with you… I wish that too… Personally, I want them to wake up to religion flaws because I hate seeing people being manipulated and exploited due to their ignorance... It's actually very harmful, not to just them, but all of us.

Counter-example 2

Your first counter-argument had some weight to it (despite the little contradiction in your statements), this one feels pretty rushed out and doesn't hold any weight… I'll explain

I see you picked USA and Indonesia, and you compared the number of terrorist attacks in each, and your conclusion was that there's more in the USA than in Indonesia (which seems right)

here where it falls apart: a quick search shows that the US is bigger and more populated

The United States is larger and has a higher population compared to Indonesia. As of recent data, the United States has a population of approximately 334,915,000, while Indonesia’s population is around 277,534,000. In terms of land area, the United States covers about 9,833,517 square kilometers, whereas Indonesia spans approximately 1,904,569 square kilometers.

This already makes the comparison unfair… But issue #02 why Indonesia? Like, why that country? Is it because I talked about Islam and Indonesia is a Muslim country so it qualifies for the comparison somehow... like if that's the criteria I would say that Saudi Arabia is more worthy to choose for that comparison, especially since Saudis are fluent in Arabic, while Indonesians have their own language...

#03 issue; the US is a Christian majority country, and if your intention was to prove that Islam doesn't have that much influence over these attacks by picking an arbitrary Muslim country, which makes the number arbitrary... well if we're comparing religion VS religion and not a Country VS Country, you should compare every Christian country to every Muslim country ( combined ) and even then the results wouldn't mean anything… Christian fundamentalists commit more crimes than Muslim fundamentalists, how would that help solve religious extremism again?

Stats you're asking for wouldn't address the problems (wars, violence, hate speech… etc.) that are associated with religion… Because you're looking in the wrong place, you want to understand a religion, look no further than it's official books, look into the history of its founders, you'll find your answers and more.

sorry for the wall of text.. Happy new year

[–] ManithaNeyam@beehaw.org 1 points 6 days ago

a religion can have all the ethics in the world written on its pages, but the mere fact that it has passages that incite violence (even if it was just a single page) shows it’s not worthy of following, because it was enough to make a group of people carry firearms and go on a killing spree, or drive a car through the crowds or bomb themselves, and at many points in history, it moved armies to kill other armies and erase civilizations

If the fact that a text incites violence is enough to disregard it, let us disregard all liberal law, as they incite "violence"(Death penalties). Violence has been a part of humanity's function so far, and I do not necessarily believe we can extricate ourselves from it with any ease. My anarchist heart fundamentally believes in a truly peaceful society, but even in a society based on rehabilitative justice, we need to have systems capable of handling individuals unwilling to go through the process of rehabilitation. In practice, this typically means some form of separation from some aspects of society, which make no mistake is violence, except it is justified in this case.

With this said, I again will contend religious groupthink and religious epistemology are likely causal factors to religious violence. However, as the null hypothesis specifies, until provided evidence of a correlation between statistic A and statistic B, there is no correlation between statistic A and statistic B. Thus, I ask you to provide peer-reviewed paper of a large sample size indicating a causation, or at least, a strong correlation(Which I have not yet been able to find), and I will believe your claim.

if you were planning to convert to the approach of looking of what people say and do is a very flawed approach (I just explained why, it’s the Categories of religious people, fundamentalists, conservatives, progressives… Etc) and you’re setting yourself up for great disappointment, and you’ll feel tricked when you find out the truth.

Are you not stating that religious people will do whatever feels religious, and not necessarily what is exactly written in the texts? If you are stating this, I agree, which is why I believe terrorist crime is not necessarily caused by what is in the religious texts.

It’s just so happens that ALL terrorist groups that I’m aware of, they do things by the book, the way they kill, the way they execute, they way they talk, the way they look, they didn’t invent a thing, it’s all already written in a book, and they’re just following holy orders that will get them into heaven ... And when you open that book, you’ll see that They’re copying the founder(s)'s of that religion own doings (crimes)… You say that you wish they took their beliefs Seriously, I take it you mean the good parts, in that, I’m with you… I wish that too… Personally, I want them to wake up to religion flaws because I hate seeing people being manipulated and exploited due to their ignorance… It’s actually very harmful, not to just them, but all of us.

You need to become more aware of terrorist groups - Hell, even the Taliban itself kinda disproves your point with https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/05/how-talibans-hijab-decree-defies-islam.

Here's another paper on ISIS doing something similar - https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/106120729/document_1_-libre.pdf?1696213268=&amp%3Bresponse-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DLINGUISTIC_ANALYSIS_OF_ISIS_MISCONTEXTUA.pdf&amp%3BExpires=1735843958&amp%3BSignature=SiwxMwvcrLE4%7ERaDo82GqRsi0EmR8XGBOSEGpJyoEtymqzmEk%7EERp6zt8Y68yt6sJtQ74dFrD2nAe27eyprea-NTrDFd16Eb0tpvmJdoRBDhXIKjDwF-mRlw9lp9dxxKbE1fd%7EdYMy-UMIgX6eurDRCxEIaZ11tvDq%7E73CWn5yfrgTUsWwznWNpBzhy%7Ekgkt7fRiKPoWfS0HnP35M%7EaMIli-VoZNgWq%7ErbWiFfCrmZeEsbWbw-Deo%7EOXvzME6MlbYuAxC%7EUsFAniaub7kOS01eP8skGmjFW9xETvVrEkgKXjNv8Hr%7EsZl7v46csPIGk-68HJXw9MrQb2fsMyBnvzZw__&amp%3BKey-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Again, I do not contend that the book is non-existent factor, I actually contend that the book is a minor factor as opposed to the goals of the organization. The goals may correlate with the book somewhat, but they will necessarily depart from the book as most religions typically tend to advocate for peace.

Additionally, if you say they do X or Y as per the book, can I get some systematic evidence, and not just vibes? If the religious text says a particular action is unethical or unnecessary, and religious fundamentalists do it anyway, is it not the case that they don't care about the religious text?

Also, ignorance is a problem, but not in the way you imply. Ignorance of knowledge is not nearly as much of a problem as ignorance of epistemology. To give you an example, there are people who are religious who "believe" in vaccines, and people who are irreligious who don't, despite the fact the vaccines are well demonstrated to be effective. The problem here is that the people who don't "believe" in vaccines do not have an accurate truth seeking algorithm. This is also the case for people who believe in religion without looking for evidence of the claims of that religion. An accurate truth seeking algorithm would ask what evidence do we have of any claim, and what counter-evidence do we have for the same claim, and make a decision on the basis of evidence. This is what is missing in all sorts of conspiracy theorists, and also, religious people. Even if a religion is 100% correct about a claim, religious people would be mistaken in believing it without looking at evidence of the claim. The case is similar for ethics as well.

I see you picked USA and Indonesia, and you compared the number of terrorist attacks in each, and your conclusion was that there’s more in the USA than in Indonesia (which seems right)... here where it falls apart: a quick search shows that the US is bigger and more populated

This was not the point of my comparison at all - The point of my comparison was simply to show that there does not exist a strong correlation between religious attitudes and terrorism. Something like 70-80% of the US is religious (Between 234440500 and 267932000 people if we take US population as 334915000) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States.

This is as opposed to 99.95%(277,534,000) in Indonesia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia. Which means we should see a reduction in terrorism compared to Indonesia, as opposed to an increase. But the fact that the number of terrorist incidents is a toss up, indicates that the correlation between religion and terrorism is weak at best.

load more comments (2 replies)