Is It Even Possible To Acquire Evidence That Religious Belief Can Be (Or Is) Destructive.

[sanctus]

So if I say that I killed someone because God told me too then this is a fact, even if I am lying?

 

Ok, I see your point. But there are plenty of examples of people being active for years in fora and such saying how they believe etc. and then commit a crime stating it was their belief making them do it. If you analyse the past behaviour and the reason to commit the crime they give, if they match then it is an as strong fact as you can get when dealing with humans.

[Moontanman]

I don't know that at all. I speculate based on what evidence exists.

 

 

http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/2011/06/case-study-peoples-temple/

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/jonestown/

 

https://archive.org/details/ptc1978-11-18.flac16

 

 

Well then you should have said it was speculation, but it does cut to the chase, all we have about an individual's motives is what they claim, people lie for various reasons, they are also self delusional, you also seem to be pimpin the "no true scotsman" fallacy from an odd angle as well. 

 

When you are dealing with humans truth is an elusive not to mention ethereal thing, if someone claims to do something in the name of god all we can do is take her at her word. The very nature of religion allows it to be used and changed like underwear, everyone has a different take on what their religion is, it might be minor or it might be huge but no one can say that someone is not a theist or if they are and we certainly cannot judge a theist's validity by her actions.. 

[motherengine]

Ok, I see your point. But there are plenty of examples of people being active for years in fora and such saying how they believe etc. and then commit a crime stating it was their belief making them do it. If you analyse the past behaviour and the reason to commit the crime they give, if they match then it is an as strong fact as you can get when dealing with humans.

I suppose that this is all I am actually attempting to explore here. I do believe and fully accept that religious teachings have, and can, be utilized to cause harm. I simply think that, due to the abstract nature of thought, the relationship between religious belief and behavior (harmful and/or helpful) is difficult to access in terms of fact and definitive understanding.

 

I think that it is equally difficult (or impossible circa 2015) to prove, scientifically, whether religion actually helps anyone.

[motherengine]

Well then you should have said it was speculation, but it does cut to the chase, all we have about an individual's motives is what they claim, people lie for various reasons, they are also self delusional, you also seem to be pimpin the "no true scotsman" fallacy from an odd angle as well. 

 

When you are dealing with humans truth is an elusive not to mention ethereal thing, if someone claims to do something in the name of god all we can do is take her at her word. The very nature of religion allows it to be used and changed like underwear, everyone has a different take on what their religion is, it might be minor or it might be huge but no one can say that someone is not a theist or if they are and we certainly cannot judge a theist's validity by her actions..

Could you give an example of how I am using this fallacy?

 

And you seem to be arguing 'for' my initial assertion.

Edited July 21, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

I

Could you give an example of how I am using this fallacy?

 

And you seem to be arguing 'for' my initial assertion.

I agree I do seem to be arguing for your initial assertion. You seem to be approaching the no true scotsman from the opposite end by say we cannot know if some who does something in the name of a religion is truly doing it for that reason.

 

Religion can be seen to be doing damage in the world but you cannot ever know a person's true motives beyond what they claim even it if agrees with scripture..