When someone flies a plane into a building, the motivation matters

[Major Nikon]

When an angry mob assembles outside a woman’s clinic, the motivation matters.

When religious organizations lobby governments for the right to discriminate based on gender and sexual orientation, the motivation matters.

When children are beaten into submission, the motivation matters.

When livestock must be tortured, the motivation matters.

I could go on and on with this, but suffice it to say whenever religion is cited as justification for bad behavior, the motivation matters. Even when religion isn’t the motivation for bad behavior, the motivation still matters.

Seems like a rather obvious point to make, but evidently some don’t like to go there. If you want to try to solve a problem, it’s very helpful to identify the problem.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Religion is an excuse for bad behavior and has been for two thousand years at least.

[guillaumeb]

3. And patriotism? Or the precursor, tribalism?

Excuses for bad behavior?

[BigmanPigman]

4. Man can make excuses for bad behavior from just about anything.

Scapegoats galore.

[guillaumeb]

5. True.

And people who desire power and dominance will find justification other than selfish desire.

[Major Nikon]

7. So long as they get a pass for it there's not any reason to change

[Bretton Garcia]

35. It excuses - and therefore increases - bad behavior

[guillaumeb]

2. Recommended.

But, what matters is also the action.

So, when the Chinese Government mandated a one child policy, with forced abortions for those who violated the policy, that mattered,

And when the same Government forces Uighurs to host what are in effect, Han Chinese spies who look for signs of "deviance", that matters.

The problem, as some seem unable to realize, is that people use many things to justify what they wish to do. Patriotism, power, religion, language, color, and ethnicity are all used by those who wish to divide for purposes of power.

So, if we wish to identify a problem, we need to identify the underlying motivation. And we need to realize that sometimes people have multiple motivations, but the need for dominance is a basic motivator.

[Major Nikon]

6. This thread is about motivation

Lord knows you’ve started enough about action and whenever someone brings up motivation you accuse them of deviancy, refuse to discuss it, and tell them to go fuck off and start their own thread. So it’s kind of a good time to point that out now.

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

8. What motivates the leaders of China?

What motivated them to introduce forced abortion?

What motivates them to put people into concentration camps?

What motivates them to post spies in family homes?

What motivated Mao to kill millions as he attempted to create a brave new China?


What quality/qualities motivate totalitarians to behave as they do?

Are you interested in discussion, or religion bashing?

Just asking.

[Major Nikon]

9. It certainly isn't religion

The last question is a false dichotomy as at times I’m interested in discussion that bashes religion. Within the religion group my interest is in the discussion of religious topics. As such the rest of your questions are off topic and I feel no obligation to answer them and will instead offer your own instructions.

[guillaumeb]

10. What is it?

Is it the desire, the need for dominance?

An extreme form of male dominance?

Your post is about motivation.

[Major Nikon]

11. Good questions all of them

None of them relevant here. Remember your own instructions.

[trotsky]

17. But we also need to remember that he sets rules for others that he exempts himself from.

Because reasons.

[Major Nikon]

18. It's not as if that behavior is unknown to religionists

Seems to be more of a defining feature.

[MineralMan]

19. I think that's all part of the delusion of thinking you are right

and everyone else is wrong. That seems to give people the idea that they can tell others what to do and not to do.

It also lets you ignore all evidence that is to the contrary of your beliefs. You're right, after all. God says so.

[Major Nikon]

20. True, but that behavior isn't limited to just religionists

The difference is with religion that behavior is often indoctrinated into them generally by the use of physical and emotional abuse. However, because that behavior isn't limited to religionists, some come to the conclusion that somehow excuses the method.

Ironically when secular totalitarians do the same thing, the method comes from the same playbook. They simply replace the imaginary divine entity with a real cult of personality and replace one big lie with another.

[trotsky]

21. Yep, the "holier than thou" class always gets special rules for themselves.

It's one of the reasons the RCC child rape scandal is so bad.

[Major Nikon]

23. Because some float the idea religious tolerance demands the acceptance of bad behavior

It would be one thing if this nonsense only came from the right, but you also have those on the left who conflate refusal to accept a bad idea with refusal to accept the people who subscribe to those bad ideas.

You had some on GD just the other day saying we should tolerate the torture of livestock because some superstitions demand it. I have no doubt those same people would soundly condemn that exact same behavior absent any religious motivation.

[trotsky]

28. Hell, I remember threads here about circumcision.

People who are totally opposed to it under every other circumstance were ok with it when done out of "religious tradition."

[Major Nikon]

29. Orwell called this phenomena 'doublethink'

[trotsky]

22. It's not atheism, that we can know for sure.

There is no atheist bible that contains any verses about any of that.

There is nothing in the statement "I don't believe in gods" that says one should have an abortion or put others into camps or anything.

But there IS this in the Koran:

“Kill [the unbelievers] wherever you find them… And fight them until there is no more unbelief and worship is for Allah alone” (Quran 2:191-193).

Now you can argue that verse means something else, or it specific to a certain context, but the fact remains, it's still in the Koran. People might just choose to take it at face value. And who's to conclusively state they're wrong? NO ONE.

Same thing with the horrible commandments and teachings in the Christian bible. Taken at face value, they clearly not just motivate but COMMAND people to do horrific things.

People don't just "use" religion, they actively do bad things because religion ORDERS them.

[guillaumeb]

25. And you are certain that you speak for all the members of the Chinese Government?

Amazing insight.

[trotsky]

26. In this case, yes.

They aren't motivated by atheism because there's nothing in atheism to mandate or suggest any of that.

Very telling that you have nothing to say about everything else in my post, which is about religion and therefore completely relevant to the subject of this thread AND the topic of this forum. Unlike your whataboutism.

[guillaumeb]

32. Telling was your response.

And your ability to speak for theists as well.

[trotsky]

42. Since you can't defend your point, you're going to grasp at anything.

But this I know: you are no Christian. Christians aren't supposed to follow "eye for an eye" justice, but you do. Christians aren't supposed to judge people, but you do.

[MineralMan]

30. Why not? Atheism has no book of rules of behavior.

It has no scriptures. Atheism is not a thing. It is the lack of belief in something. Atheism has no rules or recommendations regarding how to behave.

[Bretton Garcia]

36. The motivation of Marxism was to fight bad religion, in part

In China, to fight Catholicism and its fatal insistence on having unlimited children.

Among minorities, fighting terroristic religious divisive sects.

It is regrettable to use coercive methods. But in legal systems, when someone is bad, you are allowed to use an army and police force to stop them.

Modern western liberal atheists by the way, mostly use intellectual persuasion, rather than force.

[guillaumeb]

37. The motivation of the Chinese Government is to attack all rivals.

And they label their opponents as "terrorists". A choice of totalitarians everywhere.

Calling this totalitarianism regrettable does not really respond to their use of concentration camps, and embedded spies in the houses of theists.


As to modern western atheists, and the intellectual persuasion, outlawing religious garments, outlawing the display of certain religious symbols in offices, outlawing minarets on buildings is not intellectual persuasion.

It is brute force and open intolerance.

[Bretton Garcia]

38. Parly but not entirely true.

Sounds like 1) you are biased against the Chinese; long a common racist bias in N. America.

Most 2) of the groups China calls terrorists, are the same groups called terrorist in the US. Especially?
Various Muslim groups.

Granted, China is rather intolerant. Though 3)
it is not absolutely inflexible or totalitarian; it changed its economy from a communist command economy, to a (qualified) capitalist one a few decades ago. And has enjoyed incredible growth as a result.

4) Surveiling suspect groups in itself is not always bad; that is done all over the world.

5) In any case, I am not going to absolutely defend China. But merely suggest that it is not characteristic of modern atheism today. Our more modern American and European atheists are better, more permissive.

After all, this very blog has allowed critics like yourself on this blog, for years.

In contrast, some even argue that Marxism is not true atheism.

[guillaumeb]

45. I am biased against totalitarians.

But the things that I pointed out about minarets and wearing religious garments are issues in western democracies as well.

In my view, Marxism is class analysis. I know Christians who are Marxists.

[MineralMan]

39. I know of no atheists who

would outlaw religious garments, minarets, or religious symbols in offices. The law forbids our government from promoting religion, or course, so atheists, along with many religious folk, protest against that. The other things, though, are generally opposed by religious people, not atheists.

Perhaps you misspoke.

[trotsky]

14. #Whataboutism n/t

[Major Nikon]

16. With some obfuscation thrown in for good measure

[guillaumeb]

24. No, but I plead guilty to introducing some nuance.

Motivation was the topic.

If the choir members can only sing one note, I will provide the countermelody.

[trotsky]

27. No, that's not nuance.

It's whataboutism.

And you are no Christian.

[guillaumeb]

33. Nuance is a wonderful thing.

But it is often absent here, often leading to logical errors.

[Major Nikon]

41. You call it nuance

Using broad brush dehumanizing terms like "choir members" is known as intolerance to others.

[trotsky]

44. If you ever showed the ability to get it, that would be awesome.

But you don't, and can't. And you are no Christian either.

[MineralMan]

31. You have misspelled "nonsense."

Perhaps your autocorrect featur inserted "nuance" when you misspelled the correct word.

[Igel]

12. The motivation we ascribe to them?

Or the motivation they claim for themselves?

Because often for purposes of our own beliefs--our politics, our religion, our morals, what we think is our due or somebody else's due--we merrily say, "Oh, well, they may *say* that's the reason, but *we* know better and their *real* reason is ..." something that serves us.

For many things, the motivation is, "This is what's right and good." That can be taking away property for a higher goal, it can be putting people in jail, it can be destroying their lives in karmic retribution. Hitler didn't think himself bad. Neither did Stalin. Very few bad people consider themselves bad. So what's their motivation? Oppression? But that's not the motive they give themselves.

And if everybody thinks they're right, the condemnation comes in saying, "Well, they may *think* they're right, but by our set of moral values and how they're ranked, they are completely wrong."

Whether it's an angry mob assembling outside a women's clinic, or an angry mob assembling outside the office of a senator who may not vote the "righteous" way. (We don't call it righteous because that's associated with religion. "Just," "right", "moral," "progressive" or many other words have the same root meaning without the connotation "religious".)

[Major Nikon]

13. You can't always know what someone's motivation is

But if they cite the takbir or a bible verse its not that hard to figure out.

[trotsky]

15. Thank goodness you can read minds.

You'll be able to tell us everyone's true motivation! This is awesome news!

[guillaumeb]

34. Was your sarcastic remark true dialogue?

Telling. And following a long pattern.

[MineralMan]

40. LOL!

[guillaumeb]

46. Ironic.

[trotsky]

43. You're one to judge.

Oh yeah, that's right, you DO feel you can judge everyone.