[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?
How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?
And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]
You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.
I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.
Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.
You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.
Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point? [/quote]
I don’t understand how it is the fruit of religion if without religion the same things would have happened. In my mind it is clear that if adding or removing religion from the scenario doesn’t affect the result, religion is not an influence on war. If what I’m claiming is correct, then literally and scientifically, religion has no place in the evaluation of war. So, yes, other wars are entirely relevant and to the point.
What I’m talking about is literally DOE (design of experiments). IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??m scientifically evaluating religion as a variable in war. And scientifically religion seems to be an extraneous variable. But to do that you need things like controls where religion is known to not be part of the conflict, which is why I introduced them.
Second, you are the one making the claims about the influence of religion. You need to tell me what doctrine are causing all these bad things.[/quote]
I just replied to the class clown as I would reply to the above. Please review it and comment. If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine, then the examination of that doctrine is fair game. If man goes into war at the instruction of his government, we do not examine the nature of the soldier, but of the policy making of the government that ordered him to war. It’s a simple relationship.
Now, again, review the atrocities and let’s examine the docrtrines behind them. Fruit of the tree, not of man.
You can’t have a man do something in the name of ideology and then claim man is at fault unless of course man corrupted the ideology. Is that the defense? That in each instance listed by AC, that man corrupted the divine instruction or doctrine? If that’s your position, state how and give supporting reference. [/quote]
“If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine…”
Bold mine. This is where I think we are having the break in communication. I’m contending that claiming to do something for religion and actually doing it for religion are two different things.
I think man does things he wants to and uses a variety of excuses including religion. The excuse is not the cause.
If I go kill someone then claim I was motivated by atheism, is that a negative reflection on atheism, or am I just a bad person?[/quote]
And, if you do indeed kill someone due to an atheist doctrine, the examination of atheism is fair. Why can’t you get this distinction? If the murderer corrupted an atheist doctrine in said murder, then examination of the man is fair.
See the distinction?
Why so much trouble here avoiding the examination of religious doctrine? If it is indeed "pure’ and “good” it will be res ipsa loquitur.