Radical religion

admin: I suspect this is the cause of our disagreement: I suspect that religion itself has a moral danger, while you believe religious violence is imposed by people on religion (as seems to be true of most in this thread).

The idea of religion imposing on people... Religion is irrational, if imposition means a logical necessity; then it cannot impose. If imposition is the dictates of the religious leaders or the holy texts (written by long dead religious leaders)... it is merely an assertion just like any other.

The danger of religion is that religious people don't recognize these assertions as propositions which could be false.

but when people are going to another country and killing them just because they are of another religion is another matter.
But can you name a single instance in history when that was the case?

I can't.

You spoke of taking people in history at face value about their motivations unless you have reason to doubt them. I strongly agree with this attitude, anything else is so prone to abusive reinterpretation..

Anyway, the so called biggest religious conflict in history were the crusades and the 30 years war. Both of these had proclaimed reasons which were more than just "kill us some infidels."

For instance, the Pope cited the interference with pilgrimages and aggressions against the Eastern Roman Empire.

ADreamOfLiberty: I don't think religion is inherently irrational. There's rational arguments for and against it. I may not agree that the arguments for it are accurate, but that doesn't mean they are irrational.

I don't think anyone can argue that when Boko Haram kills people in Chad, that's purely religious.

I would also add that a primarily religious war that just so happened to have other justifications, like the Crusades, the same argument more or less applies to.

admin: I don't think religion is inherently irrational.
Well, it is.

There's rational arguments for and against it.
A rational argument is like sweet sugar. To say an argument is irrational is to say it is a fallacy. It was meant to be sweet but turned out to be sour, it's not sugar.

Sound arguments cannot contradict each other. It is irrational to oppose a sound argument. It is also irrational to evaluate any argument with a different set of premises than those you truly believe in. (a form of burying your head, as you hold one set of propositions to a higher or lower standard than others).

So back to your statement, that there are rational arguments for and against it. Let us assume that religion is like any other proposition. In that case there can be cogent arguments for and against it (though by definition that is unlikely). Both being rational. However there could not be sound arguments for and against it.

Religion isn't just any proposition however. It is specifically a proposition of partial irrationality. That is the distinction I see between religion and other propositions, the requirement at some point in the thought process for faith to avoid contradictions or to replace rational support.

If an idea does not require or advocate faith at any point, I would not call it a religion; even if it dealt with the proposition of spirits.

Please don't find me some sect of Buddhism, say "that's a religion by your definition" and then start talking about Christianity and Islam again. I use that definition because it provides a meaningful categorization.

If I used another common one "religion is any deeply held belief system with social and philosophical elements" then objectivism would be a religion, and there wouldn't be much you could say in favor or against such a broad definition.

ADreamOfLiberty: I would make a distinction between a true argument and a sound argument.

This kind of ties in to my point in another thread, but can you name me an idea that does not require any faith at all? Aren't all premises not ultimately either self-proving (thus fallacious), infinitely regressing (thus fallacious), or taken on faith?

admin: Axioms are not taken of faith, they are self-proving in the context of a rational mind; they are the only premises exempt from the requirement of further support.

Faith is not required to accept an axiom as true, only self-awareness. If the premises of religion possessed the attributes of axioms I would not call it faith to believe in them. They do not.

ADreamOfLiberty: What do you see as the difference between the axioms of "There is a God" and "There is logic"?

admin: "There is logic"

Is a statement. A statement is an identification. It implies identity. It implies there is logic AND that the statement: there is not logic is false.

An axiom is an axiom (within scope) when it cannot be denied without relying on it. The denial of "there is logic" is "there is no logic"

If there was no logic, then there could be no contradiction between "there is logic" and "there is no logic." The denial becomes a null. This is why even as religious thinkers are explaining why you need to rely on faith, they try to appeal to causality, identification, and non-contradiction. The human mind cannot help but try, what makes it corrupt is that they are chasing their own tail with the intention of burying a knife in their butt. ... 'and thus I do not need to prove what I am trying to prove QED.'

I can deny god though, without implying his necessity.

ADreamOfLiberty: I've heard exactly the same argument about God. If there was no God, then the statement that "there is no God" would be meaningless (to be frank this can be twisted to prove pretty much ANYTHING - "there is no non-existent briefcase with a million dollars in it under my bed").

Personally I don't accept it either way. I can deny logic quite illogically, but logic is still real. It's one of those arguments that philosophers just get carried away with. Still interesting though.

admin: I've heard exactly the same argument about God. If there was no God, then the statement that "there is no God" would be meaningless
You may have heard it said, but does it follow?

Why would it be meaningless?

to be frank this can be twisted to prove pretty much ANYTHING
Proof is a concept dependent on logic.

there is no non-existent briefcase with a million dollars in it under my bed
What does this statement prove?

Personally I don't accept it either way. I can deny logic quite illogically, but logic is still real.
While I agree it is illogical to deny logic (lol) the point is that denial without logic is also undefined.

If logic can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense then what are you denying and how would you know? That is what I mean when I say it is an axiom, not of the universe but of the mind.

ADreamOfLiberty: You may have heard it said, but does it follow?
Not to me. But logic isn't always really objective. It's just a set of patterns we use to understand the world. Sometimes we may miss patterns, other times we may see patterns that aren't really there, and so on. I can't objectively say that it's false, but I can say the argument makes no sense to me. Hence why I'm probably presenting it really poorly.

Why would it be meaningless?
Just as you claimed "there is no logic" is given meaning by logic, a religious person would claim "there is no God" is given meaning by God. I once had a taxi driver refuse to take me after I started chatting to my fellow passenger about atheism, unless I admit that "without God you and all your proof is nothing".

Proof is a concept dependent on logic.
Doesn't this kind of make it tautological when you're proving logic (by denying the alternative of no logic)?

What does this statement prove?
Nothing, but it sounds like it could be anything if you don't think about it too hard. Most "logic" I've seen theists run seems to work like that.

If logic can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense then what are you denying and how would you know?
How do you know that you can know?

That is what I mean when I say it is an axiom, not of the universe but of the mind.
... or more commonly known to theists as an "ontological" argument

admin: Not to me. But logic isn't always really objective. It's just a set of patterns we use to understand the world. Sometimes we may miss patterns, other times we may see patterns that aren't really there, and so on. I can't objectively say that it's false, but I can say the argument makes no sense to me. Hence why I'm probably presenting it really poorly.
Spoken like a true subjectivist. You can't make heads or tails of it, but that doesn't mean anything.

Just as you claimed "there is no logic" is given meaning by logic, a religious person would claim "there is no God" is given meaning by God.
But if I assume there is no God, the statements "there is a God" and "there is no God" are still distinct from each other. The same cannot be said if you assume there is no logic.

Don't tell me that something becomes an axiom simply because someone refuses to consider an alternative to their dogma, as would be the case if someone thought God created the world and logic so there can't be the world and logic without God.

I once had a taxi driver refuse to take me after I started chatting to my fellow passenger about atheism, unless I admit that "without God you and all your proof is nothing".

lol

Doesn't this kind of make it tautological when you're proving logic (by denying the alternative of no logic)?
Yes, and that is the point. There is no alternative, not for thinking. Existence can exist without logic but not conceptual understanding. The only question is whether we stick to our guns and use the tools we were given correctly.

How do you know that you can know?

I only define knowledge as a sum of identifications, identification is only defined after logic and existence.

You do not introduce the contradiction by saying nothing, only by claiming that logic doesn't exist. A vegetable is not guilty of fallacies. As I said axioms aren't subject to proof. They are simply something that is implicitly accepted (without any reason beyond biological programing if you will).

When someone denies an axiom, you don't say "you're wrong here's why" you just say "why are you talking?"

... or more commonly known to theists as an "ontological" argument
Everyone one of those I've encountered is actually fairly obviously a well known fallacy.

ADreamOfLiberty: But if I assume there is no God, the statements "there is a God" and "there is no God" are still distinct from each other.
Only if you believe something can have meaning without God. To you logic is giving these sentences meaning - to them it is God.

Don't tell me that something becomes an axiom simply because someone refuses to consider an alternative to their dogma
You're refusing to consider an illogical alternative. You're using logic to describe the illogical, which paradoxically is itself illogical. You're saying that without logic both sentences are equivalent. The problem is that this is a logical conclusion. I think it would be more illogical if both sentences were not equivalent without logic. But of course we can't know because in an illogical reality there is no set outcome to any given logical condition. Illogically your argument is both true and false.

Same with theists. When they say a reality without God, what they mean is a God-run reality without God. Just like you mean a logical reality without logic.

Yes, and that is the point. There is no alternative, not for thinking.
It's also the problem. Your denial presupposes logic because it is a logical denial.

I only define knowledge as a sum of identifications, identification is only defined after logic and existence.
This entire section I didn't understand a sentence of, let alone with regards to how any of it helps answer the question I posed. Ummm... think you could rephrase for bears of very little brain such as me?

Maybe it would help if I explained what I'm trying to drive at. The usual answer to "How do you know that you can know?" is because knowledge is presupposed by the question ("how do you know" not "do you know"). I asked that in response to your original question, which I think was about how I would know what I was denying if logic were not real. And the answer, of course, is completely illogical because logically I shouldn't "know" that in any axiomatic sense in an illogical reality at all. But the way you posed the question presupposes that I do know.

Two sub-issues. First, I'm not denying logic, only this specific logical argument for logic. And second, this is all tangental to the argument, since the question didn't really have much to do with my claim that logic may be real despite an illogical denial, just as God may be real despite a secular denial, hence why I don't fancy most ontological arguments anyway.

Everyone one of those I've encountered is actually fairly obviously a well known fallacy.
I should #MATAT one day...

Only if you believe something can have meaning without God. To you logic is giving these sentences meaning - to them it is God.

"to them", "to me" are not magic "no further explanation is necessary or possible" markers... not to me

Someone may believe nothing has meaning without toast, but that does not make it so. That does not make toast an axiom.

It's also the problem. Your denial presupposes logic because it is a logical denial.
That's not the problem, that's the point. When any denial requires you to presuppose that which you are denying, that which you are denying is an axiom. It is not an argument, it is a definition. It is not proof, it sums up the statement "he who denies this may deny everything, there is no point debating someone who does not recognize a difference between truth and falsehood"

ADreamOfLiberty: So your reason for why logic should be considered an axiom is because it's an axiom?

admin: I don't know if you intended it that way, but your question made a kind of metaphysical joke.

A is A, the final and most basic reason anything should be recognized as itself is that it exists... no that's not quite right. Should implies an ideal, but there is no reason and no implication before logic and identification.

It simply is, by definition an axiom. You can say "I don't like that definition" go ahead, it's just a bunch of sounds and scribbles. But the concept and the analysis remains no matter what you call it.

Before one can demand support (for anything), one implies several things are true; these are axioms. To provide support is to rely on the truth several things, those axioms. These axioms are those which ought not and cannot be debated because debate is an exchange of proposed support and 'desupport'.

I don't know any other way I can put it other than my several attempts already. Your question "your reason for why" is meaningless without both of us accepting the axioms you are asking if I'm supporting.

So the answer is NO, that is not my reason; I don't have a reason, nobody has a reason to care about reason. It's simply what the human brain does, we can only choose to not use that brain, use it badly, or use it well. Most people who have trouble accepting axioms are in the middle of using their brain badly by suggesting that they need not use it at all.

ADreamOfLiberty: I guess my problem is that there's no logic for why you consider logic to be axiomatic. Every piece of "logic" you've said is basically a restatement of the same conclusion. So it's ironic that the only proof you can think of for logic doesn't meet logic's own standards of proof. God doesn't meet those standards either, for different reasons. But you don't accept God because God is illogical. That just makes no sense to me. You just said nobody has a reason to care about reason. You said there are axioms that cannot be even debated. You say the question of whether logic exists is meaningless without logic. Again, absolutely ALL of this is stuff I've heard of theists before.

Perhaps the reason why God should be considered an axiom is because God is an axiom.

Tophatdoc: As opposed to what other religions? Pagans? They are/were extremely violent - the very crucification of Jesus is part of the societies ruled by Pagan Gods. There is also the absence of Gods, with societies like Leninist Russia, Maoist China, and Currently North Korea. You can add in Nationalism. Are more Americans peace loving people? Is that reflected in our Foreign Policy? It is simplistic in the extreme to think that 'religion' or any particular religion is the cause of these conflicts. There is no ideology that is free from the taint of corruption or possible corruption, and the only way to combat that corruption is to actively combat it.

You site being damned to Hell, destruction of the West, but where is Hitchens call to exterminate Muslims in return? Where is the bomb Iran crowd? Where is the drone supporters for blowing up people in Yemen? (All of which the major Christian denominations have denounced). Simply put, zealots are a problem with every ideology. That goes for Tea Party nuts all the way to ISIS.

gree0232: But wouldn't you agree that some beliefs are more easily corrupted than others? If there is an idea that there can be a divine mandate, then it is easier to justify conflict, if for no other reason than that there's another excuse for it. Even within religion, some are more emphatic about commanding peace than others are.

admin: Who so? If you claim its divine, then there are skeptical people out there who will want to test it. Its not like humanity is just a collection of lemmings waiting for someone to say that their claim is divine - and with the records of most religious quite public, the claims not supported by that (which at least Christian theology makes clear cannot violate that) then a claim of divinity in and of itself is not a cause of much alarm - if anything it is a cause of much skepticism.

Case in point: the Russian Revolution - it was adherence to the Revolution that drove humanity to great excesses. No divine claims, just a 'purpose' that was bigger than the participants. The same thing with the French Revolution. The Cultural Revolution. The sole binding factor on all atrocious human activity is someone of charisma seeking power by any means necessary. That they tap into available ideologies to facilitate that end is ... self evident?

Whether religious or not, some people favor war more than others. The point at which some humans will fight and others will not is a scale ... not a set standard. We are not all ardent pacifists, and neither are we all would be war lords. There are those among us that go to either extreme.

We should also be careful to 'blame religion'. When, for example, ISIS is being rejected by Al Qaeda (hardly a facilitator of peace), is it really Islam driving this organization? Or is it the bloody mayhem? The killings? The installation of fear? The disaffected Suna in Syria and Iraq cut off from political power and seeking to retake it by force? Is that a fight about religion? Or a fight about very real and very tangible political power?

gree0232: Agreed brother.