my entire quote: three dozen, at most, in the US. The other stat was global. We've done this before- I provided many reports on the topic of Islamist terrorism, and how the statistical reality is disconnected from perception.
The more ambiguous, the worse. You're right, a better statement would be "no one has killed anybody because they were told to be more peaceful/reasonable." And your conclusion is wrong, we have the data to support such. The most peaceful, prosperous, non-violence cultures and societies in history have been secular in nature, and as I've already shown/said here, the Eastern mystics have far less blood on their hands historically. It's not a coincidence. And while you may not be offering justification, you are certainly offering a sense of resigned helpless (at best) and excuses (at worst). There is no good or moral deed that cannot be done without religion. That much is fact. No one can be inspired or led to atrocity by being too peaceful or reasonable. Net loss is inevitable and unavoidable due to this. If you are, in fact, a person who would commit evil or immoral deeds unless you had religion, then you are a sociopath and considered a moral statistical outlier (somewhere between 1-3% of the population). Creating these horrible religions that justify and invoke upon so much death, pain, suffering, and oppression by otherwise moral and sane people in order to corral such a minority is a net loss any way you slice it. Bad math all around. It means we have bad religions and need better ones. The entire BBS is here at your disposal, knock yourself out. I hope to hell you are joking with this comment.
Then I find it curious that we are living in the least violent time in human history, and the trend has us pretty much moving asymptotally toward absolute peace. That stance is not only incorrect, but cynical and defeatist. Idealistic or unattainable as it may be (there's always going to be psychopaths out there who can read a Dr. Seuss book and think it means "kill John Lennon", of course, these outliers are not meant to be considered part of any true statistical analysis), it is a goal worthy of our time and effort. Never make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Wait, you are saying that it is not "rational and moderate" to say that not letting women be priests is not on the same level as stoning homosexuals and adulterers? And excommunicating people from the Catholic church is not the same as killing someone for "apostasy from Islam" - maybe in your world it is, glynch. In mine, it isn't. If that is not "moderate and rational" for you, go see a psychiatrist or something.
Well, thanks for making it clear you were just feigning moderation. For me it is not important that you and others like you think that forever or at this moment in history Christanity is superior to Islam, or vice versa. Hey, write some academic papers on it. Discuss how many angles or jinni can dance on the head of a pin. Why not? What concerns me is that the level of intolerance you and others like you presently contributes to the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, and the death and maiming of many thousands of innocent Christians for that matter, sent to kill Muslims because of your immoderation. I, too, would like to see present day adherents of the Muslim faith be more moderate, but I don't believe the immoderation of your obsession contributes in any way whatsoever and contributes to increased terrrorism in the world. BTW I do see a moral equivalence between 9/11, car bombs etc. and needless war and drones attacks. Of course in sheer numbers the needless war and drone attacks kill more people, but both suck.
Let's have a look at the global picture: What's your guess regarding the religion of the perpetrators in these attacks?
I dont see how history registering more eras of violence than tranquility disagrees with Pinker's findings at all (though I certainly agree that it undermines Hitchens advocation for endless war, a stance I never subscribed to). In some ways, it should corroborate it. Thanks for the link; dont have time to see Pinker's talk, but I would encourage you to also check out John Gray's critique of Pinker's writings. I think Pinker's work has aptly demonstrated a decline in violence in Western Europe from the 1200s until today, but is it fair to aggregate the Western European experience to the world stage? Additionally, his reliance on a global statistical decline in violence only stems back to the 1950s, which is hardly sufficient in the scope of human civilization. It's also uncertain the extent to which Biblical citations are in fact true. I find this especially curious given Pinker's rejection of religion; As an atheist, wouldnt the entire narrative be considered mythology? Why suddently lean on it as a source of substantiation? (His quote: "This supposed source of moral values contains many celebrations of genocide, in which the Hebrews, egged on by God, slaughter every last resident of an invaded city") The same goes for his citations of early Muslim and Hindu texts, which he says frequently boast of torture and genocide; Again, this too is debatable the extent to which a boasting of ones military prowess as a result of past victories is a celebration of genocide. That said, its difficult for me to make a full assessment of Pinker's work since I'm relying on this video and havent had an opportunity to read his book, which I plan to do. "Never make the perfect the enemy of the good." I find this especially curious coming from you- In some ways, couldnt your argument be perceived as demanding the perfect from religion? (ie even 1 death comment...) Why cant religion too aspire to bring out the best, not the perfect? I dont think any religion would claim to advocate unending, or senseless violence. But a Just War Theory is common across many religious traditions, and I'm sure you recognize instances in which uprisings and revolutions demand a violent component to them in order to meet their ends...
Just because I demand/desire perfect does not mean I discourage or dismiss the good. For example, I've said multiple times on this BBS that I respect and value Eastern spiritual philosophies more than Western. If every Christian on Earth suddenly converted to Buddhism, although less than ideal, I would consider it a pleasant and positive occurrence. My argument has never advocated throwing out the baby with the bathwater or scorching the earth to achieve ends, and it never will.
Why is this surprising? The bulk of these statistics come from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Northern Pakistan (with an addition of Palestine for suicide bombings). Any resistance activity in those nations is going to be termed terrorism, and the categorization of terrorist activities makes such discussions entirely one-sided. For example, state sponsored violent action never gets categorized as terrorism (think disproportionate violence by IDF vs. Palestinian suicide attacks, or Shock and Awe vs. car bombings/IEDs). So an Afghan car bomb is terrorism, but indiscrimate killing operations are not.
This is where moral calculations get murky. Take Tibet, for example. Tibetan freedom has been an ongoing struggle against the Chinese, and has relegated them to a status of second class citizens. Had the Tibetans organized themselves and violently resisted, is it not possible that they could have resisted occupation more effectively? What about the Arab Spring and places like Libya? Is assuming a stance of nonviolence but unending dejection and oppression morally superior to the loss of lives in an effort to alleviate those conditions? Is there no instance in which you recognize the need for violence to bring about the better?
As I've already said, violence in the name of ending oppression or protecting life/welfare is not the same as violence in the name of superstition. Those justifications are not equal. If you were thinking I was of the impression that violence is never acceptable or justified, I don't know where you got that idea. Edit: I retracted and amended my statement about people never killing "in the name of peace/reason", because those situations do in fact arise with proper justification. Going along with my "perfect not the enemy of the good" mantra, when presented with justified violence (i.e. given no other reasonable option), while not an ideal solution, one cannot be faulted for acting accordingly. If one chooses to maintain their non-violence, I cannot fault them for that either, as I respect their amazing amount of self control and ability to stand by their principles. The problem I have is that people confuse necessary/sufficiently justified violence with unnecessary/insufficiently justified violence all too often.
Religion is clearly at least part of their motivation, or at least they say so. So what percentage of deaths by terror attacks is caused by Islamists, globally? Just answer the question, please. Thanks.
Your missing the point- religion sanctions (and at times, advocates) violence in order to end oppression or protecting life/welfare. Even terrorists openly declare this to be their aim and frequently cite it as a justification (oppression of people, people dying, etc).
Sigh....this is what makes any discussion with you extremely frustrating. From the graph, I'd have to guess 90% Sadly, any meaningful discourse is impossible with you, particular with anything beyond 'simple' talking points that attempt to do anything other than scratch the surface. You once lamented the scarcity of real discussions about Islamist terrorism, but the reality is that you're uncapable of participating in such a discussion. For that, I'll state simply, that I'm done.
This point was not included in your post anywhere. This was the only point I saw. How did I miss it? I directly answered it. Edit: I'm guessing you missed my earlier edit that spoke to the "in the name of peace" idea. Are these religions you speak of *actually* justifiably ending oppression and protecting life/welfare? (if they are then what is the problem?) If you say you're ending oppression/protecting life, but all you're really doing is killing people because somebody burned a book or drew a cartoon, then why should I be compelled to believe they are ending oppression/protecting life?
Why is the discourse not meaningful anymore when you have to concede that globally, more than 90 % of casualties from terrorist attacks are caused by Islamists who claim to act in the name of Islam? You were more than happy to be the one who brought up statistics about the US where the figure is lower. I wasn't the one who brought up statistics. So the discourse is only meaningful if the statistics support your hypothesis (let's say: Islam is not a motivating factor in terrorism, or at least not the main one) but when I respond with statistics which indicate the opposite, then, all of a sudden, the discourse is not meaningful anymore? I appreciate you bringing facts into the discussion (which is a lot more than can be said about some others), but what's wrong with responding with facts (even if the facts in the response do not support your position)? Edit: I tried to do some more research and found this (doesn't seem to be from a right-wing source or anything like that, seems to be a Kurdish-Swedish blogger) - if your argument were to say that the only reason most terrorist casualties are from Islamist attacks is the instability in the Middle East and South Asia - more than 90 % of terror casualties in the USA and Europe 2001-2011 were also killed by Islamist attacks, even if you take out 9/11. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/islamists-caus-overwhelming-majority-of.html To be fair, I think that article was written before that crazy neo-nazi terrorist Breivik went on his killing spree - that changed the percentages quite a bit. But the overall point still stands.
Telling how you cherry pick the location and time. http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm I dunno, how do I fit 70,000 people into your pie chart, does it just explode it? Maybe the focus shouldn't be on one particular ideology. It should be how perverted ideologies are used by people in desperate means to achieve what they want. Since perverted ideologies are being created every day, from every angle, and throughout history, even the best of ideologies have been warped, maybe we should look into well, either avoiding ideology, or assuaging the desperate conditions that create so much extremism in the first place. food for thought.
