The war on faith.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

In strict terms, they do not practice the same religion. Some people chose to ignore passages like these: " And kill them (non-followers of allah) wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

Those who chose to ignore this are not strictly practicers of that religion.

[Matt R.]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but maybe it is my use of the word "exact"?

By "exact" I essentially mean use the same religious texts, call themselves by the same name (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.), *claim* to (edit) have the same ideals...

People who practice the same religion (same as in the context above) can somehow come to vastly different conclusions on the morality of certain actions. One member of a religious group may hate America so much that they convince themselves some sacred text demands they become a suicide bomber. Another member comes to the presumably more logical conclusion that the religious text means something else entirely, and doesn't condone the murder of innocents.

Their religion thus isn't "exactly" the same, but they are presumably founded on the same premises -- the lunatic just interprets it to suit his preconceived hatred.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
" And kill them (non-followers of allah) wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with this passage, and I would honestly like to see the context of the quote. If this is really a correct translation of a document that the Muslim (I presume?) faith holds as sacred -- and, even in context, the quote literally means "kill anyone who isn't Muslim" -- then I agree that we should be "at war" with anyone who follows this religion without question. Given the number of Muslims out there who are peaceful towards other religions though, I'm guessing there is more to it. Or... at the very least, certain texts are rejected by certain "sects" (for lack of a better word) of the Muslim faith.

However, the OP specifically mentioned Christians who use their religion in the name of war (I think he mentioned Northern Ireland?). Using your faith as justification for war is the exact *opposite* of what Christianity is about (and I know this for a fact, as I am one). So again, I stand by my original assertion that the cause of war isn't faith or religion, but the distorted and incorrect views of a certain subset of a given religion who use ridiculous interpretations of "sacred texts" to justify their behavior.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: to add a math question
If something will happen with near certainty(99.9%) within 100 to 1000 years what range of is the probabilty of it happening in a single year?

[/ QUOTE ]

About the same as a book reaching the NY Times Best-Seller list every year - proclaiming it's the end of the world......again.

[Matt R.]

Also,

[ QUOTE ]
This is a form of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other physicists do not work on string theory because they think some other theory is better and string theory is fundamentally wrong. They have their own evidence for doing this. They have faith that their evidence is better than whatever the evidence for string theory is.

If you *really* have faith in nothing, then you pretty much just have to wait around for other people to tell you what is right and wrong. It is the people that have faith in their beliefs who advance modern thought. Faith only becomes "irrational and immoral", and dangerous, when you refuse, under any circumstances, to modify your faith in the face of legitimate counter-evidence.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Their religion thus isn't "exactly" the same, but they are presumably founded on the same premises -- the lunatic just interprets it to suit his preconceived hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

All people take their morals and prejudices to their religion and interpret it to fit ( subconsciously, natch). Sure, mostly it's pretty benign but it doesn't mean somebody with a different interpretation is doing anything wrong, they merely disagree with anothers take on it.

In cases where people do make a choice about their religion, what causes them to pick one over the other? Can a person pick a religion that they disagree with it's moral tenet's as they see it presented ... that's an oxymoron .. a believer that doesn't believe.

Since there are thousands of religions and sects often based on the same sacred works, it's pretty hard to argue that one right and one is wrong. You get out what you put in.

That doesn't leave religion not-guilty, the necessity to suspend rationality ( or we'd all have the same religion) IS the cause, not any specific interpretation. Terrorists are not lunatics and it's a big error to make thinking so.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, mostly it's pretty benign but it doesn't mean somebody with a different interpretation is doing anything wrong, they merely disagree with anothers take on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I disagree. I think it is pretty easy to pick out the "morally wrong" interpretations. Generally, if you understand the context and true translations of a writing, you don't have much wiggle room to interpret it incorrectly. Making claims like Christianity advocates war (in the northern ireland case) is so egregiously wrong that... well, let's just say this isn't open to interpretation. Unless, of course, you pick out 4 words like "Abraham went to war", and automatically conclude -- war is good, kill all non-Christians! This goes back to the issue of getting at the true meaning and context of the religion or religious text, and not picking out one verse of one passage of one chapter.

I do concede that it is *possible* some sacred religious texts (like the quote Jshuttle gave) really do advocate violence. I am not convinced that the quote he gave really means what the little snippet means, however. All I can say is, that if there ever was a religion that advocates something like "kill all non-believers", then that religion is unquestionably wrong.

[Matt R.]

And, as for this:

[ QUOTE ]
In cases where people do make a choice about their religion, what causes them to pick one over the other? Can a person pick a religion that they disagree with it's moral tenet's as they see it presented ... that's an oxymoron .. a believer that doesn't believe

[/ QUOTE ]

If Christianity really did advocate killing of innocent people, then I would definitely choose not to be a believer of Christianity. You can logically analyze the fundamental teachings of a religion and decide which one you think is more correct. I actually believe (more or less) that all major religions are "equally correct" if you will -- they just have different interpretations of spiritual/metaphysical/whatever ideas. That doesn't mean ALL religions are correct. Some cult in Idaho may believe it's okay to sacrifice innocent children, I would not say their beliefs are correct.

For instance, I can usually easily distinguish the fundamental teachings of Christianity from what some crack-pot priest has to say on some ridiculous issue. He can claim God has his side, but he can claim whatever he wants. I don't discount my religion because there are a few crazies out there who claim they are Christian.

[madnak]

The Christian authorities as well as the majority of the Christians themselves have long supported an interpretation that encourages war. Care to tell me what makes you more qualified than a hundred generations of Christians? Or how it's "easy" to pick out the wrong intepretations, when virtually everyone who read the Bible picked them out for 1500 years or more?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is, that if there ever was a religion that advocates something like "kill all non-believers", then that religion is unquestionably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

By whose measurement?
That's where I think all your references to "true" interpretations falls down .. hard. Religious texts don't have many "anything over 60 is speeding" statements, everything is contextual ( or so those who disagree with a specific literal claim by others will insist).
Once it's open to interpretation right/wrong don't carry much meaning.. perhaps better/worse do, but that may be even conceding too much .

luckyme