New Atheism

[Red]

Granted, there aren't any sure fire signs that atheism was related to the shootings or killings or whatever, but it can be a plausible motivation. Like I said, atheists can be bigoted towards religous people, and that bigotry can manifest into violence.

[Volenta]

Granted, there aren't any sure fire signs that atheism was related to the shootings or killings or whatever, but it can be a plausible motivation. Like I said, atheists can be bigoted towards religous people, and that bigotry can manifest into violence.

I don't think atheism drives people into violence against certain types of people, but anti-theism certainly can do that. I think we have to be honest and recognize that anti-theistic claims can have the effect to some people to be bigoted against religious people (especially Muslims), and this might be a bigger problem in the new atheistic communities then some of us like to admit. I regularly come across Islamophobia denialism (Bill Maher sadly enough being one of them), which is troubling if fellow liberals make such claims. Don't get me wrong, criticism against Islam can be absolutely valid and should be done in many cases, but we should also be honest about and pointing out problems with certain attitudes against religious people.

However, when a Muslim, who happens to be a highly functioning computer scientist from England, one day decides to start beheading journalists and aid workers, then we can safely say he's motivated by religion.

I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid inference, and possibly empirically not even true (but I have to be honest and say I haven't looked into it that much). You can not rule out other possibilities, which are actually not really that far reached regarding it's plausibility.

It should first be pointed out that being a Muslim is only part of someones identity. There are a lot of factors which weigh in into behaving a certain way (although sometimes it is pretty straightforward), which have to be carefully and scientifically be evaluated if you really want to know what's motives someone doing the things you said. This is something I disagree on with Sam Harris, which has done research into believe and the brain and even though he knows about the complexity of the mind, he's not (always) applying this knowledge when talking about behaviour of people that subscribe to Islam.

Killing journalists can be done for lots of reasons; from taking as hostages, to giving a shock effect for showing power and/or attracting new participants for your organization, to killing those who do have a lot of influence (media) and not presenting objectivity, completeness of even truth to the killers' point of view.

As for beheading (or killing in general) of aid workers: this is a quite uncommon practice, which is probably why not much is known about the motives behind it. It's can absolutely not be taken for granted it's necessarily religiously motived, and political motives can certainly not be ruled out because it seems barbaric. If you have more knowledge about this case then I do, I love to see some sources backing up your claim.

[Red]

Anyhow..

I don't think atheism drives people into violence against certain types of people, but anti-theism certainly can do that. I think we have to be honest and recognize that anti-theistic claims can have the effect to some people to be bigoted against religious people (especially Muslims), and this might be a bigger problem in the new atheistic communities then some of us like to admit. I regularly come across Islamophobia denialism (Bill Maher sadly enough being one of them), which is troubling if fellow liberals make such claims. Don't get me wrong, criticism against Islam can be absolutely valid and should be done in many cases, but we should also be honest about and pointing out problems with certain attitudes against religious people.

Who makes up 99% of the anti-theistic people? Atheists. And, like I said, atheists can be bigoted towards religious people, and thus, that bigotry can manifest into violence. I see no reason to be an anti-theist theist, unless you're against religion like that guy who made that poem Jeff Becky or whatever his name is. Atheism, or, as you said anti theism, can be the prime motive for violent actions. Another thing I notice is that when Muslims kill someone, it's the religion's fault, and so the entire muslim population must condemn this terrorist act. An atheist could kill someone, with anti theistic motives, as a theist might kill for theistic reasons. But we don't see any atheist killings seen as terrorist acts, do we?

[Volenta]

Who makes up 99% of the anti-theistic people? Atheists. And, like I said, atheists can be bigoted towards religious people, and thus, that bigotry can manifest into vioence. I see no reason to be an anti-theist theist, unless you're against religion like that guy who made that poem Jeff Becky or whatever his name is. Atheism, or, as you said anti theism, can be the prime motive for violent actions.

Sure, but I like to stress it's not atheism itself. We should be interested in causation, not mere correlation.

Another thing I notice is that when Muslims kill someone, it's the religion's fault, and so the entire muslim population must condemn this terrorist act. An atheist could kill someone, with anti theistic motives, as a theist might kill for theistic reasons. But we don't see any atheist killings seen as terrorist acts, do we?

I think you are right that some people are using a double standard regarding speaking out condemnation about terrorist acts made by people within the same community or ideology. I don't think there are good reasons to demand such things, but it might have some practical use in softening the fear and bigotry some people have against Muslims if they would do it (or actually, many of them are). But on the other hand, some part of these people making those demands are at the same time not quite willing to listen to Muslims and are generally suspicious about the integrity of the Muslim who does speak out against terrorism.

[Red]

Sure, but I like to stress it's not atheism itself. We should be interested in causation, not mere correlation.

That statement is completely open to interpretation. But, when it's all broken down, atheism, or more preferably anti-theism is the main cause of violence against theists, when religion is taken into account. I guess it could be both causation and correlation. Plus, correlation may be a bigger factor than you may presume.

[Volenta]

Sure, but I like to stress it's not atheism itself. We should be interested in causation, not mere correlation.

That statement is completely open to interpretation.

Is it? I'm just trying to explain that we should look for actual reasons why people are motivated to be violent, instead of just looking at some statistical representation. There might be a correlation between fascism and skin color, whites being statistically more likely to be fascistic. Then we shouldn't complain about being white, but stick to fascism and it's ideas. The same with anti-theism: hateful and violent anti-religious beliefs can lead to actual violence (causation). I do not say it's not valuable to have a correlation, but that shouldn't be the end of the discussion (or research).

But, when it's all broken down, atheism, or more preferably anti-theism is the main cause of violence against theists, when religion is taken into account. I guess it could be both causation and correlation.

Whoa whoa, hold on a second, the main cause? I don't think that is true. If we limit ourselves to just religiously and anti-religiously motivated violence, there is much more violence among theists themselves, both between religions and groups within religions (Sunni and Shia for example). The number of atheists are on a global scale relatively small, let alone those participating in violence against theists.

Plus, correlation may be a bigger factor than you may presume.

What does that sentence even mean?

[Red]

Is it? I'm just trying to explain that we should look for actual reasons why people are motivated to be violent, instead of just looking at some statistical representation. There might be a correlation between fascism and skin color, whites being statistically more likely to be fascistic. Then we shouldn't complain about being white, but stick to fascism and it's ideas. The same with anti-theism: hateful and violent anti-religious beliefs can lead to actual violence (causation). I do not say it's not valuable to have a correlation, but that shouldn't be the end of the discussion (or research).

so what you're saying is, be fascist?

Whoa whoa, hold on a second, the main cause? I don't think that is true. If we limit ourselves to just religiously and anti-religiously motivated violence, there is much more violence among theists themselves, both between religions and groups within religions (Sunni and Shia for example). The number of atheists are on a global scale relatively small, let alone those participating in violence against theists.

Would you believe me if I said I forgot to insert the words "most likely" between "is" and "the"?

Plus, correlation may be a bigger factor than you may presume.

What does that sentence even mean?

Whatever you think it means.

[Volenta]

so what you're saying is, be fascist?

You might think so if you are a professional language acrobat.

Would you believe me if I said I forgot to insert the words "most likely" between "is" and "the"?

In the absence of good reasons I'm not able to say so. But still, what makes you think that is the case?

Whatever you think it means.

Correlation just describes a relationship between two things. The word 'bigger factor' has no meaning in this context—it's not something you can apply to 'a correlation'. It does have a degree of strength, but it says nothing about causation or anything else of importance to our conversation from what I can tell.

[Red]

so what you're saying is, be fascist?

You might think so if you are a professional language acrobat.

Define.

In the absence of good reasons I'm not able to say so. But still, what makes you think that is the case?

So what you're saying is, it is atheism and anti theism are never the causes of any violence against religion.


[quote="]
Correlation just describes a relationship between two things. The word 'bigger factor' has no meaning in this context—it's not something you can apply to 'a correlation'. It does have a degree of strength, but it says nothing about causation or anything else of importance to our conversation from what I can tell.[/quote]
How so?

[Volenta]

You might think so if you are a professional language acrobat.

Define.

Someone who can twist words into interpreting something completely different then was intended by the original writer.

So what you're saying is, it is atheism and anti theism are never the causes of any violence against religion.

And this is a great example of language acrobatics.

How so?

Let's not shift the burden. Just explain to me what exactly you meant when writing 'correlation may be a bigger factor'.