Why do ppl from other religions fight against each other?

[Time_lord_victorius]

in the time of crusade, religion meant wisdom, wisdom is power and power engeders fear. and in fear, you seek for hope, and in religion, you find hope. its a vicious circle really. now people with power always want more power so they can be dominant (like in a wolf pack or the republican party). its always for seising power and all. religion is just a medium to get power from. nothing more. its always been a power struggle in any place, any time, in any species in the world.

[einherjar145]

Thx for the comments. I now feel easier understanding this cause i was spammed by ppl who do this to me every day(automatic reaction part >.<)

[Daxx]

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

Just because you would prefer to assign qualities to ideologies based on practicioners of those ideologies doesn't mean that doing so is correct. Any nuanced view of politics would maintain that qualifications in these circumstances are entirely appropriate. Nietzsche was no more responsible for the Nazis than Marx was responsible for what Stalin did, or that the prophet Mohammed was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So I'm not really sure what your point was, aside from a deliberate conflation of fascism with Nietzschean ideology. It seems like you're railing against something I didn't say.

[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.

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?

After thinking about it a little more, I was just worried that philosophies that don't explicitly reject belief in God, but merely lacked an explicit acceptance of belief in God, might get blamed on that basis. It would've been more accurate to think of this as "nontheism," and this would indeed have been too vague.

I'll agree that people have killed in the name of atheistic philosophies, and the Cult of Reason was a good example.

[collimatrix]

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

Just because you would prefer to assign qualities to ideologies based on practicioners of those ideologies doesn't mean that doing so is correct. Any nuanced view of politics would maintain that qualifications in these circumstances are entirely appropriate. Nietzsche was no more responsible for the Nazis than Marx was responsible for what Stalin did, or that the prophet Mohammed was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So I'm not really sure what your point was, aside from a deliberate conflation of fascism with Nietzschean ideology. It seems like you're railing against something I didn't say.

Apologists of all stripes love to claim that any horrific real-world implementation of their pet ideas was because it was somehow perverted or otherwise compromised.  Communist apologists in particular are extremely fond of this particular example of the Scotsman Fallacy (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman") because it gives them a chance to bloviate about the wonders of their particular brand of communism.  If there's anything communists are good at, it's endless bloviation.

As I said in the second post in this thread, and as most of the responses have shown, attributing violence to any particular ideology is a shaky exercise.  The Old Testament specifies in Exodus that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and yet somehow modern Jews are able to rationalize this particular injunction from G-d away and have not been particularly enthusiastic about witch burning of late.  Even people with a religion that explicitly encourages specific forms of violence are somehow able to ignore that when it doesn't seem worthwhile.  Meanwhile, Christians in Nigeria are lopping off the hands and feet of children they think are witches.

So, to answer the thread's question succinctly, people from different religions fight against each other because people fight against each other, and sometimes the warring factions happen to belong to different religions.

[Korugar]

Off topic: Sorry, where does it say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't say I remember that line in Exodus anywhere...

[collimatrix]

Off topic: Sorry, where does it say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't say I remember that line in Exodus anywhere...

You could just google it...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A18&version=KJV

[Korugar]

Yeah, thanks.

[Daxx]

Apologists of all stripes love to claim that any horrific real-world implementation of their pet ideas was because it was somehow perverted or otherwise compromised.  Communist apologists in particular are extremely fond of this particular example of the Scotsman Fallacy (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman") because it gives them a chance to bloviate about the wonders of their particular brand of communism.  If there's anything communists are good at, it's endless bloviation.

The "no true scotsman" fallacy is only fallacious if you're actively trying to deny that a given quality could be attributed to any member of a category. It's not fallacious to note that a quality is not an integral feature of belonging to that category. If anything, trying to make assertions about all members of a category based on a single instance is guilty of the same logical error but in reverse. Just because you don't like apologists (or, apparently, communists) doesn't mean they cannot be correct.

So, to answer the thread's question succinctly, people from different religions fight against each other because people fight against each other, and sometimes the warring factions happen to belong to different religions.

Which makes me wonder why you were quoting me in the first place, since I never actually said anything contrary to that - in fact, that's pretty much my position on this summed up right there. You need to pay more attention to where you're directing your rants - if it's more general in nature, you should probably make that more explicit. Remember that forum discussions are often a threaded series of replies which amount to a conversation, and they're usually lacking in context.