Why do ppl from other religions fight against each other?

[collimatrix]

Im willing to bet many muslims agree that the "extremists" are not true followers of their religion either, and are just perverting it to progress their own self interest.

I'm willing to bet that most Muslims don't believe most other Muslims are true believers.  Same as most Christians, actually.

Funny you should mention it though, Wahhabists pride themselves on practicing a more pure form of the religion; unshackled by years of interpretation, theological drift and general perversion than do other Muslims.  Who are you to say they're the ones who've got it wrong?

[killybob]

because of all the deaths that have been a consequence of their religious views.

[collimatrix]

because of all the deaths that have been a consequence of their religious views.

And?  So what?  Are you claiming that "mainstream" Muslims (as if a mainstream could be identified in so diverse a field) have clean hands?  Look up how Nasser treated Sayyid Qutb; indeed, look at the very foundations of Islam.  They didn't go from a local tradition to having heads bowing towards Mecca across the entire Old World in three centuries by holding hands and singing Kumbayah.

If deaths attributable to ideological motives invalidate a religion then all the world's religions and especially atheism are bankrupt.

[Neopergoss]

If deaths attributable to ideological motives invalidate a religion then all the world's religions and especially atheism are bankrupt.

Who has died "in the name of atheism"? Plenty of people may have been killed by atheist leaders in the name of atheist philosophies, but not in the name of atheism itself. That's like saying that someone has died "in the name of theism," which would be just as false. People die for specific religions or philosophies, not theism or atheism.

[killybob]

yes. it is the people we are describing who do the damage but NEVER the religion itself (unless the religion is called killasmanypeopleasyoucaninoneminute-ism). lets look at the title of this topic. Why do ppl from other religions fight against each other? this is perfect as it does not frame the religion itself at all.

[Neopergoss]

yes. it is the people we are describing who do the damage but NEVER the religion itself (unless the religion is called killasmanypeopleasyoucaninoneminute-ism). lets look at the title of this topic. Why do ppl from other religions fight against each other? this is perfect as it does not frame the religion itself at all.

You misunderstand me. People do kill in the name of their specific religions or philosophies, but no one has killed in the name of the less specific "theism" or "atheism." Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a few people had, but it's definitely less common.

I will agree that there is enough leeway in possible religious interpretations that it doesn't make much sense to hold a religion responsible for specific moral decisions of religious people. I do believe that relying on a religious text can make it harder to follow one's own moral instincts, however.

[Daxx]

The only state-supported atheistic ideology that has ever been used to justify murder on religious grounds was anti-theistic Marxism as practiced* by totalitarian dictators in the USSR, China and a few other communist countries. I suspect that the people in power in those states would (and in fact did) purge political opposition on whatever grounds they could get away with. It's sort of like claiming that communism was responsible for those same murders, which is equally stupid.

*I would use the word "distorted" here, but that's a more lengthy discussion in and of itself.

[Kamietsu]

Well, to help understand why religions fight, first you have to figure out which religion is right.

[collimatrix]

The only state-supported atheistic ideology that has ever been used to justify murder on religious grounds was anti-theistic Marxism as practiced* by totalitarian dictators in the USSR, China and a few other communist countries. I suspect that the people in power in those states would (and in fact did) purge political opposition on whatever grounds they could get away with. It's sort of like claiming that communism was responsible for those same murders, which is equally stupid.

*I would use the word "distorted" here, but that's a more lengthy discussion in and of itself.

The only state-supported Nietzschean ideology that has ever been used to justify the liquidation of the elderly, mentally infirm, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jews, Communists, and Slavs was the religiously ambiguous Nazism as practiced* by the NSDAP and Fascist party in Italy.  I suspect that the people in power in those states would (and in fact did) purge political opposition on whatever grounds they could get away with.  It's sort of like claiming that fascism was responsible for those same murders, which is equally stupid.

*See?  I get get away with BS qualifications too.

Meanwhile, most everyone else seems comfortable with the notion that "religious violence" as a qualitatively distinct category of violence is a suspect idea.

[collimatrix]

If deaths attributable to ideological motives invalidate a religion then all the world's religions and especially atheism are bankrupt.

Who has died "in the name of atheism"? Plenty of people may have been killed by atheist leaders in the name of atheist philosophies, but not in the name of atheism itself. That's like saying that someone has died "in the name of theism," which would be just as false. People die for specific religions or philosophies, not theism or atheism.

This is all semantic hair-splitting special pleading, and moreover it's historically inaccurate.  Look up the French Revolution's Cult of Reason, in the service of which people most definitely were executed.

Even if you were correct about people never having been killed in the name of some vague ideological ideal, and may I take the time to remind you that you are in fact completely wrong about that, what of it?  State atheism as practiced by the USSR under Joseph Stalin is a subset of atheism, and it is perfectly convenient and reasonable shorthand to just call it atheism if the issue being contended is death by religion (see initial post in thread).  Everyone else in this thread seems entirely happy to refer to Muslims as a homogeneous lump at most differentiated by "mainstream" and "radical" varieties, why should atheists need to be more finely divided?

[EvaRia]

Cause they all think they're right and think everyone else is wrong, and it's so important to them that they can't just sit with people thinking otherwise.

It's really difficult to sit there knowing you're right and everyone else is wrong, even though they think otherwise.

Your automatic reaction is to try and correct them, because you know 100% for certain that they are WRONG.

Now make every religious person in the world think like that and that's where the fighting begins.

[collimatrix]

Cause they all think they're right and think everyone else is wrong, and it's so important to them that they can't just sit with people thinking otherwise.

It's really difficult to sit there knowing you're right and everyone else is wrong, even though they think otherwise.

Your automatic reaction is to try and correct them, because you know 100% for certain that they are WRONG.

Now make every religious person in the world think like that and that's where the fighting begins.

Yes, whenever people hold mutually incompatible views of the universe violence is just around the corner.

I remember well the fights that broke out between supporters of phlogiston theory and those who supported chemical theory.  The fighting dragged on for years and there were many atrocities on both sides.

I shed a single, manly tear every time I see an economic discussion panel on CNN because within minutes there will be rioting in the streets and shootouts between the Chicago School supply-siders and Keynesian interventionalists.

The worst though, is the endless struggle between the people who see a vase and the people who see two women talking to each other.

If only people had a little more flexibility in their outlook on the world, I'm sure there would be less pointless fighting!