Putting my views of Religion and Society to the test.
Offline In my last topic, I ragged on others for not testing their arguments in favour of their view on religion and society.
In light of this I have decided to post a rather shortened version of mine.
I propose, that using basic psychology that we can determine that it is rather likely that the societal ills are the driving force behind religion rather than vice-versa.
It is rather elementry that people derive their own views on religion based on experience, society etc...
We should thus expect that people in a place with societal ills, would have different religion than those that do not. However, if I am wrong, we should see sociatal ills regardless of their views on religion.
I came across this study:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf
[wow it has numbers! imagine that!]
relatively secular nations do not have lower homicide rates than nations where people accept
God and Heaven, but do not embrace their malevolent counterparts, the Devil and Hell. Collective
beliefs suggesting a relatively benevolent religious cosmos are negatively correlated with homicide
when included in a regression analysis with more malevolent, dualist dimensions of the religious
cosmos.
Here's a relativly simple explanation:
What to religious people blame evil on? Satan, the devil etc....
It is hence, no surprise that social ills will be associated with high belief in Satan/Hell.
What do religious people attribute good to?
God, heaven etc...
It is thus no surprise that religious people in prosperious nations do not believe in Satan, hell etc...
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, I read it...but I don't see how it fits into the discussion. One person speaking in a mosque says he wants peace between the religions to unite together against the United States nationbuilding? ...?
That wasn't why I linked to it.
The point of the matter is is that the Shia massacres in Iraq were committed by the Ba'ath party. [which was the first part]
They saw them as a threat to their power rather than the "you believe differently than me"
That reference says that Hamas is supposed to end suicide bombing. Where do you draw the conclusion that "Ethnic jews" didn't get their concept of ethnicity from religious practices? They call shia-sunni conflict "ethnic cleansing", even though the difference is only religious practices (which they make law for themselves). Also, where did the conclusion that suicide bombings stemmed from no religious beliefs come from?
The references do not explain anything. :I
The point was below the link, I really don't think Hamas abandoned Islamic fundamentalism, so why abandon suicide bombing?
As for the ethnic conflict, remember that the Ba'ath also persecuted the Kurds, which is an ethnicity.
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:Okay, I read it...but I don't see how it fits into the discussion. One person speaking in a mosque says he wants peace between the religions to unite together against the United States nationbuilding? ...?
That wasn't why I linked to it.
The point of the matter is is that the Shia massacres in Iraq were committed by the Ba'ath party. [which was the first part]
They saw them as a threat to their power rather than the "you believe differently than me"
All these massacres between Shia and Sunni are being committed by a secular political party? Really? Then what about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29880634/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni-Shia_relations
I do believe that after Saddam was ousted, the Ba'ath political party pretty much disappeared from Iraq. In fact, the headquarters there was completely destroyed.
In June 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath party. They are headquartered in Damascus of Syria now.
ClockCat wrote:That reference says that Hamas is supposed to end suicide bombing. Where do you draw the conclusion that "Ethnic jews" didn't get their concept of ethnicity from religious practices? They call shia-sunni conflict "ethnic cleansing", even though the difference is only religious practices (which they make law for themselves). Also, where did the conclusion that suicide bombings stemmed from no religious beliefs come from?
The references do not explain anything. :I
The point was below the link, I really don't think Hamas abandoned Islamic fundamentalism, so why abandon suicide bombing?
Okay...so you are saying that it is Islamic fundamentalism. So it has a religious basis.
As for the ethnic conflict, remember that the Ba'ath also persecuted the Kurds, which is an ethnicity.
So you are saying a government pushing secularism, that was a minority, was persecuting the majority to keep them in line so they didn't lose power?
And that explains the ethnic cleansing going on how..?
Kurds may be a minority, but they are an "ethnicity" that stems from Islam, and are nearly exclusively Sunni. They are /militantly/ religious because an insult to their religion is an insult to their lifestyle is an insult to their culture, history, etc.
Kurdish culture is a legacy from the various ancient peoples who shaped modern Kurds and their society, but primarily of three layers of indigenous (Hurrian), ancient Iranian (Medes), sumerian, and Islamic roots.
(From the wikipedia page using http://www.cal.org/co/publications/cultures/iraqis.html as source)
In addition to answering these points, I would add: What about the crusades? The Inquisition? The iconoclastic war?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline I would also welcome discussion of the Muslim conquests, the French wars of religion (catholics vs protestants in 1562–98), and the Reconquista.
If I can think of any more famous examples of religiously inspired conflict, I'll be sure to bring them up.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline All these massacres between Shia and Sunni are being committed by a secular political party?
No
Really? Then what about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29880634/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni-Shia_relations
I do believe that after Saddam was ousted, the Ba'ath political party pretty much disappeared from Iraq. In fact, the headquarters there was completely destroyed.
In June 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath party. They are headquartered in Damascus of Syria now.
I don't think you just get over years of violence just because the oppressors are gone. [Espically when you are being occupied.]
Okay...so you are saying that it is Islamic fundamentalism. So it has a religious basis.
What? No.
So you are saying a government pushing secularism, that was a minority, was persecuting the majority to keep them in line so they didn't lose power?
And that explains the ethnic cleansing going on how..?
Like I said above. Just because your oppressors are gone does not mean they just stop this is compouned by the fact that the replacers are not providing stable government
Kurds may be a minority, but they are an "ethnicity" that stems from Islam, and are nearly exclusively Sunni. They are /militantly/ religious because an insult to their religion is an insult to their lifestyle is an insult to their culture, history, etc.
The Ba'ath is pan-Arabic, so the persecutions of the Kurds seemed inevitiable.
As for Kurds being "militantly religous", The PKK didn't get that memo.
Kurdish culture is a legacy from the various ancient peoples who shaped modern Kurds and their society, but primarily of three layers of indigenous (Hurrian), ancient Iranian (Medes), sumerian, and Islamic roots.
(From the wikipedia page using http://www.cal.org/co/publications/cultures/iraqis.html as source)
I'm NOT saying that the conflicts in the Mid-East are divorced from religion, my point is that addressing the religion by itself, will not get the conflicts resolved.
The point is that saying "If it wasn't for religion then..." is too narrow a focus in such a complex process.
In addition to answering these points, I would add: What about the crusades? The Inquisition? The iconoclastic war?
I don't know enough about these to comment.
- Login to post comments
Offline I would also welcome discussion of the Muslim conquests, the French wars of religion (catholics vs protestants in 1562–98), and the Reconquista.
If I can think of any more famous examples of religiously inspired conflict, I'll be sure to bring them up.
The point is that saying "If it wasn't for religion then..." is too narrow a focus in such a complex process.
Society is a complex process and religion is just one of many facets
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:
In addition to answering these points, I would add: What about the crusades? The Inquisition? The iconoclastic war?
I don't know enough about these to comment.
lolz.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline
lolz.
So should I just go with your method and resort to ad homs and childish remarks so I don't have to address the points?
- Login to post comments
Offline I think that one of the most damaging effects of religion is its irrationality, and the way it seems to be highly correlated with acceptance of further irrational precepts. I would like to see a study which examines whether this connection is real and how prevelant it may be.
In my experience, the acceptance of "esoteric" forms of medicine is virtually always found in conjunction with religious ideas. The same holds true for conspiracy theories, weird physics ideas(such as perpetual motion machines) and "New Age" ideas(Atlantean crystals and such). There is also a tendency to mistrust science and scientists, often in favor of amateurs making more strident but invalid claims.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
- Login to post comments
Offline So should I just go with your method and resort to ad homs and childish remarks so I don't have to address the points?
Alison, I don't give two shits at this point. I do, however, find it absolutely hilarious that you remain stubbornly attached to your position that religion does not/has not done substantial harm... and yet you're ignorant of landmark events like the crusades and inquisition.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline
ClockCat wrote:
All these massacres between Shia and Sunni are being committed by a secular political party?
No
Okay, then.
Really? Then what about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29880634/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni-Shia_relations
I do believe that after Saddam was ousted, the Ba'ath political party pretty much disappeared from Iraq. In fact, the headquarters there was completely destroyed.
In June 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath party. They are headquartered in Damascus of Syria now.
I don't think you just get over years of violence just because the oppressors are gone. [Espically when you are being occupied.]
Are you saying that the conflict between the Shia and Sunni is a new thing?...or that the Ba'ath party is responsible for it? A party that hasn't been around for more than 60 or so years, when the conflict and ethnic cleansing has been going on since the division in the 7th century?
Okay...so you are saying that it is Islamic fundamentalism. So it has a religious basis.
What? No.
But you did, you said that "I really don't think Hamas abandoned Islamic fundamentalism, so why abandon suicide bombing?"
So you are saying a government pushing secularism, that was a minority, was persecuting the majority to keep them in line so they didn't lose power?
And that explains the ethnic cleansing going on how..?
Like I said above. Just because your oppressors are gone does not mean they just stop this is compouned by the fact that the replacers are not providing stable government
They are two entirely different groups of people. How is it in anyway transferred over to the Shia-Sunni conflict? The Ba'ath party, if anything, STABILIZED the area from Shia-Sunni conflict. They were a GOOD thing for keeping the peace. Now how do you explain the Shia-Sunni conflict?
Kurds may be a minority, but they are an "ethnicity" that stems from Islam, and are nearly exclusively Sunni. They are /militantly/ religious because an insult to their religion is an insult to their lifestyle is an insult to their culture, history, etc.
The Ba'ath is pan-Arabic, so the persecutions of the Kurds seemed inevitiable.
The Ba'ath party is not anti-Kurd. They just do not want to live in a theocracy that is against them. It was started largely by a Christian minority, where they didn't have equal rights in an Islamic nation. They were pushing for secularism only as a means to prevent being persecuted themselves by other religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aflaq
As for Kurds being "militantly religous", The PKK didn't get that memo.
A terrorist organisation that makes up a very small number of Kurds didn't get the memo? Okay? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.
Kurdish culture is a legacy from the various ancient peoples who shaped modern Kurds and their society, but primarily of three layers of indigenous (Hurrian), ancient Iranian (Medes), sumerian, and Islamic roots.
(From the wikipedia page using http://www.cal.org/co/publications/cultures/iraqis.html as source)
I'm NOT saying that the conflicts in the Mid-East are divorced from religion, my point is that addressing the religion by itself, will not get the conflicts resolved.
The point is that saying "If it wasn't for religion then..." is too narrow a focus in such a complex process.
I fail to see the difference between problems stemming from religion that effect society, and how religion effects society. I also would argue that it isn't in any way a narrow focus for the argument, in fact if anything it is extremely broad.
In addition to answering these points, I would add: What about the crusades? The Inquisition? The iconoclastic war?
I don't know enough about these to comment.
Well, the iconoclastic war was a war started over the use of symbols. It violated the first commandment of depicting anything in heaven, earth, or water.
The Reconquista was a period of 800 years in the Middle Ages when several Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula succeeded in retaking the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim control. It began immediately after the conquest, and when it ended with the conquest of Granada the Inquisition began a few years later. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in the kingdoms, and replaced the midieval inquisition under papal control. They worked very hard to convert through any means possible. It included repression of Muslims, Jews, and Protestants..but was exclusively religious persecution in nature. People were frequently accused of being heathens however, and they would be tortued into admitting it and then repenting and accepting their religious beliefs. There was also a huge list of prohibited books, pretty much anything that contradicted their religious views made it on the list.
The Crusades were religion-driven military campaigns against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthadox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, Muslims, and political enemies of the popes.
They took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins. They had the goal originally to recapture the "Holy Land" from Muslim rule.
The Muslim conqusts began after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He established a new unified political polity in the Arabian Peninsula. The wars lasted for over a hundred years.
The French Wars of Religion happened between French Catholics and Protestants, from 1562-98. They both called each other "evil" and "corrupt. Here is a nice painting from the period, showing some Protestants getting speared.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Kev, sweetie cakes, I think I have made enough posts about stuff like this to debate ad nausim
I'm not saying any of these are divorced by religion, that is not the point.
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you saying that the conflict between the Shia and Sunni is a new thing?
No
But you did, you said that "I really don't think Hamas abandoned Islamic fundamentalism, so why abandon suicide bombing?"
That was a question
The Ba'ath party, if anything, STABILIZED the area from Shia-Sunni conflict. They were a GOOD thing for keeping the peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq
- The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.
- The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
- Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.
- The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shia Muslims after the Shia uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.
- A massacre of Kurds in 1991, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war, also resulted in mass graves.
How is that "GOOD at keeping the peace"?
How is that NOT "anti-Kurd"?
The Ba'ath party is not anti-Kurd. They just do not want to live in a theocracy that is against them. It was started largely by a Christian minority, where they didn't have equal rights in an Islamic nation. They were pushing for secularism only as a means to prevent being persecuted themselves by other religions.
All that article says is that he was Christian. It does nothing to support your assertion of why the Ba'ath party is secular.
Now how do you explain the Shia-Sunni conflict?
I would predict that some power struggle between a Shia leader in power and a Sunni leader trying to claim said power [or vice versa] ignited the conflict, taking advantage of the difference.
A terrorist organisation that makes up a very small number of Kurds didn't get the memo? Okay? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.
The PKK goal is an independent Kurdish state. That is why the Ba'ath party persecuted the Kurdish minority.
I fail to see the difference between problems stemming from religion that effect society, and how religion effects society. I also would argue that it isn't in any way a narrow focus for the argument, in fact if anything it is extremely broad.
Society shapes religion. Religion shapes society.
Take this example:
Canada has a high Catholic and Protastant population, yet there is no massive Canadian civil war. There has got to be underlaying conditions that would cause them to go at it, showing that society and other conditions play a rather significant role.
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:Are you saying that the conflict between the Shia and Sunni is a new thing?
No
ClockCat wrote:But you did, you said that "I really don't think Hamas abandoned Islamic fundamentalism, so why abandon suicide bombing?"
Cpt_pineapple wrote:That was a question
A question that is also a statement, you directly related Islamic fundamentalism to suicide bombing.
ClockCat wrote:The Ba'ath party, if anything, STABILIZED the area from Shia-Sunni conflict. They were a GOOD thing for keeping the peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq
* The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.
* The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
* Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.
* The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shia Muslims after the Shia uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.
* A massacre of Kurds in 1991, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war, also resulted in mass graves.
How is that "GOOD at keeping the peace"?
It made a statement the government did not care whether you were Shia or Sunni, and kept fighting off the streets in the cities. It prevented mass ethnic cleansing of areas, which happened immediately after the government's removal.
How is that NOT "anti-Kurd"?
Well, if you read what you put up you said Shia muslims were put to death as well. Kurds are almost exclusively Sunni. I would say it was more putting their foot down. I'm not here to criticize a way to create a legitimate government.
The Ba'ath party is not anti-Kurd. They just do not want to live in a theocracy that is against them. It was started largely by a Christian minority, where they didn't have equal rights in an Islamic nation. They were pushing for secularism only as a means to prevent being persecuted themselves by other religions.
All that article says is that he was Christian. It does nothing to support your assertion of why the Ba'ath party is secular.
"The Ba'ath party also had a significant number of Christian Arabs among its founding members. For them, most prominently Michel Aflaq, a resolutely nationalist and secular political framework was a suitable way to evade faith-based minority status and to get full acknowledgement as citizens."
taken directly from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party
Now how do you explain the Shia-Sunni conflict?
I would predict that some power struggle between a Shia leader in power and a Sunni leader trying to claim said power [or vice versa] ignited the conflict, taking advantage of the difference.
Predict? It isn't something to predict..it has happened and was recorded. It started immediately after their divine prophet's death. There were no Shia leaders, or Sunni leaders...it developed based on how to interpret Muhammed, and how to live by his divine words. It is entirely a religiously inspired war, and has been for...quite a while.
A terrorist organization that makes up a very small number of Kurds didn't get the memo? Okay? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.
The PKK goal is an independent Kurdish state. That is why the Ba'ath party persecuted the Kurdish minority.
Oh, is that why? I was convinced here that it was because they were a communist revolutionary party, which is what they state they are. They turned paramilitary very early on...and have been regarded as a terrorist organization by nearly every major power in the world. The EU declared them terrorists, the US did..I mean, they don't seem very persecuted to me, with all the attacks they have carried out and murder of innocent people. Don't mistake the revolutionary party terrorist organization for all Kurds.
I fail to see the difference between problems stemming from religion that effect society, and how religion effects society. I also would argue that it isn't in any way a narrow focus for the argument, in fact if anything it is extremely broad.
Society shapes religion. Religion shapes society.
Take this example:
Canada has a high Catholic and Protastant population, yet there is no massive Canadian civil war. There has got to be underlaying conditions that would cause them to go at it, showing that society and other conditions play a rather significant role.
So..you are expecting Canada, a fairly new country, to have a war being waged at this moment between two religious groups?
That is a very high expectation. I would think it would be more apt to say, history repeats itself. If there are fundamental differences in their belief of how they see the world around them, then it will show. It happens most violently usually when the division first occurs. Who knows what the next new interpretation of archaic scriptures will yield in violence?
Also, are you insinuating that religion played no part in the French Wars of Religion?
I would like it if you took the time to explain the other events I listed as well. They are very relevant to how society has been, and continues to be influenced by religion.
The iconoclastic war is a big one.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline
A question that is also a statement, you directly related Islamic fundamentalism to suicide bombing.
A question that was directed at you
It made a statement the government did not care whether you were Shia or Sunni, and kept fighting off the streets in the cities. It prevented mass ethnic cleansing of areas, which happened immediately after the government's removal.
Prevented? IT WAS ETHNIC CLEANSING!!!
Well, if you read what you put up you said Shia muslims were put to death as well. Kurds are almost exclusively Sunni. I would say it was more putting their foot down. I'm not here to criticize a way to create a legitimate government.
Errrr excuse me?
Ignoring the clearly fucked up logic to justify genocide [seriously what the FUCK?]
The Ba'ath party is also predominetly Sunni. Hussien was Sunni
THERE WAS NO RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KURDS AND THE BA'ATH
Oh, is that why? I was convinced here that it was because they were a communist revolutionary party, which is what they state they are. They turned paramilitary very early on...and have been regarded as a terrorist organization by nearly every major power in the world. The EU declared them terrorists, the US did..I mean, they don't seem very persecuted to me, with all the attacks they have carried out and murder of innocent people. Don't mistake the revolutionary party terrorist organization for all Kurds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK
The PKK's ideology is founded on revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and Kurdish nationalism. The PKK's goal has been to create an independent, socialist Kurdish state in Kurdistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_nationalism
Kurdish nationalism mostly surrounds the secessionist cause for an independent Kurdistan. Kurdish nationalism is significantly cultivated in the worldwide Kurdish diaspora.[1]
Also, are you insinuating that religion played no part in the French Wars of Religion?
I have said repeatily that I can't completly divorce religion from any of these conflicts.
The rest is just me saying ad nausim
- Login to post comments
Offline I take it you are not going to respond then regarding any of the topics I have brought up.
The Shia-Suuni conflicts, Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Reconquista, The Spanish Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, and the Iconoclastic War.
They are all wars caused by religion. You say you can't divorce religion from them, but you attempt to reduce it's influence when it is clearly the defining factor here.
I think I have fairly well proven that religion has negatively effected society in each case. You agree that religion is at least an underlying cause of each issue, and that the effects of each of the things I listed were negative...right? I mean, I would hope you wouldn't say that any of them were a good thing.
I'm not sure why you want to talk about the government of Iraq, the Kurds, or the terrorist organization the PKK. I didn't even bring up those topics. If you follow the link to the wikipedia entry of the PKK you will find everything I stated already about them.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Honestly, the conclusion that religion is detrimental to society should come as no real surprise to you.
In 1996 the Irish Republic held a referendum on whether it's state constitution should still prohibit divorce. Mother Teresa flew from Calcutta to campaign for the "No" side. So, an Irish woman married to a wife-beating drunk shouldn't expect better, and it would risk her soul to plead for a new start. It was amended anyway, despite the religious opposition. It was fiercely debated though, and the vote was very narrow to change it.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Prop 8 was pushed solely by religion. Because of that I can no longer get the same rights as other people in California, along with several other states that the same message was campaigned in about marrying someone of the same gender.
It directly negatively effects my life. So yes, I can say that it has detrimental effects through personal experience as well.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Alright; so you can, on one hand, just outright dismiss one study - and then also trumpet another around like it's the Gospel?
Well, just for shits'n'giggles:
Lulz!
Yeah. I'm quite sure there was no bias in this reporting at all.
Vanderbilt University is a Tenesee based private school. Yes, it's accredited; but anyone care to bet on whether it's also largely a theocratic Jesusometer?
Here's a hint: the Univeristy has an 'Honor Code'. Guesses as to what some of that code might involve?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
That study has what we know as calculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University#Honor_Code
http://www.bme.vanderbilt.edu/King/honor_code_statement.htm
At any rate, guess what journal that study was published in?
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/mission.html
Care to expand as to how high it is on the Jesus meter, or will you just keep making assertions?
No need to guess; it's watermarked with the journal.
It's the 'Journal of Religion and Society'. A non peer-reviewed claptrap journal released by Creighton University, which is not so much a school as it is a megachurch.
You know what? Forget that crap, though.
Hamby's study that you felt you could dismiss out of hand (which is from exactly the same 'journal' as the study you cited) also includes numbers; just ones you didn't like as much as the ones in this study. Please; enlighten me with regards to the decision to buy into the findings of Gary Jenson and not those of Gregory S. Paul?
(Of course, then you're going to probably start railling on the fact that if the journal is the equivalent of digital 2-ply toilet paper, it shouldn't have been cited in the first place. And hey, I'd even agree with you. But it's funnier to have you trying to explain the ridiculous double standard you presently hold)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Calculations.
Paul's study had scatter plots while Jenson's study made calculations and used other variables.
Paul didn't do a regressive analysis. Jenson did.
Jenson's study is more detailed
etc.. etc...
Plus there was the objections to Paul's study in the other abstract that I posted.
You mean like how you seem so dismissive of this study?
How you tried to show the University as "largely a theocratic Jesusometer?" but sorta failed epically?
Alison, did you ever watch, "A Few Good Men"? In that movie, the U.S. army had an informal 'Code Red' policy in order to weed out 'weak' recruits. In one scene, the army prosecutor challenges a witness to locate the 'Code Red' policy in the army manual; of course, he can't.
The challenge was fallacious - an informal rule wouldn't be published in any manual.
Similarly, arguing that the 'Honor Code' policies aren't detailed on VU's website (they mostly just talk about who enforces them), therefore it must all be perfectly secular good fun, is stupid (to be fair, I'm mostly just casting hollow aspersions; though I've never seen a univserity with an informal 'Honor Code' that didn't use it as a stingent control mechanism over student privacy. That, and you might want to check out who the chairlady of the university is.
)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
How about you refute the data?
Do you know what an Ad hom is?
Not addressing the argument, but rather attack the people making them?
If I wanted to make one, I would point out that Gregory Paul is a paleontologist.
Also, the Journal is peer reviewed
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/toc/About.html
Boom.
Headshot.
(Granted, Vanderbilt didn't just hand me this kind of material. But man, this is so much better.
Creighton University: The place theists turn to when they want to pretend that imaginary friends who encourage murder will not actually encourage murder)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
errrrr then why did they publish the Gregory Paul study?
It's not strictly ad hominem. I'm pointing out the obvious:
A) potential for bias
B) conflict of interest
Credibility is an important thing to have for your citations, Alison.
Michael Behe loves to claim that Darwin's Black Box when through 'blind peer review' too.
Yeah. 'Blind' in that he wasn't sure which of the Discovery Institute fellows was going to read it.
Now, admittedly, I can't criticize the data. I have no idea what the data shows or doesn't show; I'm not a mathematician.
How about, instead, you show me something from a real journal that I know was actually reviewed by experts? Something from Nature, maybe?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, let's look at what they did, shall we?
- They publish Paul's study.
- They then publish a strong rebuttal to Paul's study.
- They then finish with the study you cite, essentially giving their own PoV the last word on the matter.
That strikes me as a rather good political strategy if they want to espouse the view that religion causes no harm.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And yet, you cite a study from the same journal.....
Fascinating. Than why are you posting again?
Nature is a physical science journal, this is social science.
Why don't you do the same for your claim?
here's another study by Jensen in a Journal
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/1/2/6/pages21264/p21264-1.php
No, I did not. Go back to the other thread and see if I cited the Paul study.
Yup...
Nope.
This would be a 'psuedoscience' or 'junk science' or 'woo woo science' journal.
The claim that people who believe that a deity will reward them for throwing rocks at 'adulterers' and continue doing so until said adulterers are dead, and also punish them if they do not, will encourage them to start picking-up rocks?
I think you already agreed that this would happen, didn't you?
Anyway, you have fun playing armchair academic with your sociology number crunchers. Myself, I tend to be more convinced by... what did you call it? Physical science. Stuff like an exponentially growing population of snuff films out of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where Islamic fundies scream, "Allah Ackbar!" and then either cave-in the skull of girl with a slab of granite or set off an IED.
Fun times.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Here's the same study published at Vanderbilt, though the tables are at the back, rather than intertwined
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/RELIGHOM.pdf
And the chair women is an Episcopal [whatever that is], you would be hard pressed to find an university that isn't run by a Theist considering that most Americans are Theist.
Plus the chairwoman doesn't review the journals, the sociolology department does.
No, because somebody else posted it for you. You stand by it yes?
Funny you say that when you just admitted that you're not qualified to analys the data.
Read Robert Pape's or Mia Bloom's opinion of the subject.
Anyway, why the fuck do you always say I already conceded something when I haven't the foggiest memory of doing so?
We already had a discussion about Pape and his book that he published in the popular press, that was not peer-reviewed, remember? And then you were like 'OMGWTF LIKE PEER REVIEW EVEN MATTERZ!@@@????!!?'
I read CIA and IDF intelligence docs and correspondence reports from soldiers instead of what moldy old goofballs happen to think, thanks.
EDIT: Just for you, though, you can read what other academics have thought about Pape's work in the American Political Science Review; an actual peer-reviewed journal (and a rather prestigious one). Volume 102, Issue 02, May 2008, pp 269-273, authors Scott Ashworth, Joshua D. Clinton, Adam Meirowitz, and Kristopher W. Ramsay.
I'm afraid I can't link you to a copy; real journals aren't published online for wikijunkies to peruse. You'll have to see if you can borrow/buy a copy at your university.
You likely aren't going to find it terribly flattering to your dear Mr. Pape.
Beats me. When was the last time you had a CAT scan?
Your reply to me asking you whether a specific view of Christianity would be unhealthy was, 'Yes, that would be unhealthy', and then you 'rebutted' with the fact that there are multiple demons that a person can adhere to (as though that somehow renders the harmful demons unharmful?)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Aw Geez! Blah! Blah! Blah!
If you want stats on relgion,
atheism, homicide, and fucking verbal masturbation...BY COUNTRY, icluding GDP, unemployment, and more....
I'm no fan of the CIA, but checkout their web site. Lookup something (if memory serves me well) is called The World Fact Book.
You can't fuckin' miss it.
Come on back and let's see what you found out. K?
If you've never seen their stats it's pretty impressive.
YES, they are fuckups on tons of stuff. ---- Just check it out and let's see if your conclusions have changed.
Indeed.
They even have a section for K-5th, which I'm sure Alison and most other theists will quite enjoy. You can find out about the furry friends of the CIA and everything!
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
You mean the same CIA that was in the hands of the Bush administration that is known for lying to further their agenda
The same journal that published Pape's paper?
Why yes. Yes it is.
EDIT Added link /EDIT
Also do you mean this study?
http://www.princeton.edu/~clinton/Published/ACMR_APSR.pdf
That I found in five seconds with a google search?
Anyway, Pape's study IS in the political science review
As for that study
Buzzz wrong assumption, Pape has shown otherwise. Thanks for playing though.
EDIT also, the study just says that a more detailed anaylis of the data is required. /EDIT
You crack me up Kevin.
What? You completly missed the point of that question.
Yeah, ALL OFF IT!
This is the 3rd time I'm tellin you there's stuff you should check out.
The diversity of information is enormous and relates to what you're debating in not trusting each others study.
Open your brains enough to check out the enormous diverse info your debating
ENOUGH TO LOOK BRFRE YOY EVEN CONSIDER THE STATS.
Are yoy both AFRIAD THAT IF YOU QUOTE CIA STATS THAT EVERYONE WILL THINK YOU BITH IDIOTS!? 0--- Fuck 'em.
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF AFTER LOOKING.
Acceptance in any collective
isn't worth the price of ignorance, nor is a myopic vision of what is acceptable to the collective more important than learning.
All's I'm saying is look and majke up your own mind. I know you'll find the amount of info as astonishing, and believe it would assist you.
Don't be so goddamn Borgish!
Check it out.
George Tenet (director of the CIA at the time the Bush Administration was in charge) actually wasn't 'in the Bush administration's hands' at all. In fact, he repeatedly told ol' Dick that there was no intelligence demonstrating a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq at all - so Dick had to invent his own intelligence.
In fact, the Bush Administration wound-up leaking an undercover CIA spy's name to the public after they were challenged by the CIA on their poor intel.
Ooh, you got me. Nothing knocks me down like bald assertions.
Anyway, no need to quote-mine the papers. You linked 'em both (I wasn't aware it was published online); folks can read them and come to their own conclusions on who actually knows their shit, I'm sure.
...You might recall (or might not; apparently your memory is rather selective) when I asked you what applications you thought your theism might have? And then you just sort of shrugged-off the question?
Well, the above would be an example of the type of application good intelligence is expected to provide: accurate targetting data. Threat identification. Engagement priorities (very deliberately attempting to avoid shooting the Mosque, as an example, because of it's religious significance to potential enemy recruits). Etc (I should note here that I do not actually agree with the standards employed in the above engagement. First, there was obviously no way for the gunners to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants; second, no quarter was offered to incapacitated, surrendering or retreating combatants; it was just an outright massacre).
What's the application for Pape's academics? What can he tell the guys on the ground?
"Oh, don't worry; when they yell 'Allah Ackbar!' and shoot an RPG at you, they aren't really being compelled by their religion."
What a hero.
EDIT: It would be important to note at this point that, according to Alison (who is using Pape as her proxy expert & authority on the matter), Al Qaeda is in no way a religiously motivated ideology. Strictly politics, as it were.
Now, according to the agency who's principle target for the past few decades has been Al Qaeda, and for which information like their agenda would be an important piece of applicable data, this isn't at all true (Pg 69-70); in fact, they even predict, according to the contrary claim, that Al Qaeda is becoming a dead brand name as a result because it's religious goals are counter to the goals of many modernizing muslim countries.
Huh. Go figure that the people who actually have to put plans into action don't agree with the results derived from theistic apologetics.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Geez! Just fuckin' look!
What you think I'm an Evangelistic Bushite CIA-loving Repugnant!
Just fuckin' look.
And yet apparently that has nothing to do with why the terrorists want the troops out of their country or why people join the terrorists because their family members or friends were killed in that "outright massacre".
Do you not see how the torture in Gitmo bay or Abuh Garab could possibly recruit more terrorists and perhaps put America on their "Not so nice countries" list?
Read the end of his book.
After all how could determining WHY terrorists resort to suicide bombings possibly help reduce them?
[since you're a little slow, that was sarcasm]
For the record, he proposes to change U.S foreign policy. Perhaps using more military force than necessary isn't such a grand idea.
This kinda goes against the "Religion will help garner support" thing doesn't it?
What 'help garner support thing'? I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that religious dogmas have an obvious and detrimental effect on the mental health of those that adhere to them.
Of course it has an effect! You keep attacking the strawman argument that religion is the only cause of ills, which is nonsense, and then ignorning the part where experts agree that the core motives of Al Qaeda's founders stand on foundations of sectarian goals to establish a global Islamic state and topple apostate regimes (however unrealistic goals those might be).
I mean, do you admit that doctrines of Sharia law exist? And if you do, do you admit that belief in the absolution of Sharia law is an unhealthy thing? And if so... does that undercut your entire argument? That religion has little/nothing to do with the problems being faced in the Middle East?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Oh, that's brilliant.
I don't agree with the Bush administration's foreign policy, but I'm also not so naive that I think I have the perfect solution for foreign policy. It's a rather complex and somewhat chaotic enterprise; on one hand you have situations like Iraq or Vietnam, for example, where force obviously wasn't called for. On the other hand, you have situations like the Rwanda genocide (what's Pape's explanation for that one, by chance?) or World War II, where clearly someone should've stepped-in and yet nobody did until it was far too late.
People who pretend to have 'the answer' are just fooling themselves.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yes
Yes
Not really. I believe we've gone over this. The Shiara law is so attractive because it offers power.
The PFLP, the Ba'ath party, the Fatah Party, PKK etc... all derive their doctorines sans Sharia law.
That, Kevin, is why I propose that there are more to the conflicts in the Middle East than merely religion.
If there was another underlaying cause, we should see secular groups contributing. We do
If it was purely religon, then we should only see Sharia addherents contributing. We don't
EDIT
To put it through your thick head:
P1: In order to for them to commit the acts they need some underlaying cause. [Other wise we should see ALL Muslims contribute, we don't]
P2: The causes from P1 are, in of themselves, adequate motivation to commit the acts. This is shown by the secular groups in the Mid-East
C: It would be far better to address the causes from P1/P2, rather the religion.
It is also possible that the terrorist will simply sub in another excuse, a la the secular groups, which would bring us back to square one.
[/EDIT]
Same strawman slapfest again.
*Yawn*
Have fun tilting at windmills, Alison. I'm done here.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
You said brought up religion and the conflicts in the Mid-East.
I addressed the conflicts in the Mid-East
I mean you're saying that without religion there would be little, no, or not as significant conflict in the Mid-East right?
I addressed that so I don't see the strawman.
But meh, who am I to prevent the door from hitting your ass on the way out.
Cpt..are you saying that without religion the middle east would be in conflict as much/more?
Because without shia-sunni warring (entirely religious warring within Islam) and jewish/islam warring over a select area of desert deemed holy, not to mention the crusades...I think it's pretty obvious most conflicts to this day wouldn't have happened.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Pretty much, which is why I have listed secular groups
If by Shia-Sunni conflict, you are refering to Iraq you may want to refer to this
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_secularorreligious42803.html
As for Israel, it seems to be more Arab vs ethnic Jew, than Muslim vs Religious Jew
Reference this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israel
If Hamas were driven by the religious difference, then they would still suicide bomb Israel regardless of whether Israel is occupying since the religious difference sill exists.
Okay, I read it...but I don't see how it fits into the discussion. One person speaking in a mosque says he wants peace between the religions to unite together against the United States nationbuilding? ...?
That reference says that Hamas is supposed to end suicide bombing. Where do you draw the conclusion that "Ethnic jews" didn't get their concept of ethnicity from religious practices? They call shia-sunni conflict "ethnic cleansing", even though the difference is only religious practices (which they make law for themselves). Also, where did the conclusion that suicide bombings stemmed from no religious beliefs come from?
What about the crusades? Or the iconoclastic war?
The references do not explain anything. :I
Theism is why we can't have nice things.