[Pants-of-dog]

The "Call it a hunch" comment was tongue-in-cheek.

If someone hangs a black guy while screaming "God bless the KKK!", it would be a fair assumption to conclude that racism is the catalyst.

What if the person never went to Klan meetings, did not say racist things, and in general did not act as if they believed in racism and then did this?

Would you guess the reasons were more complicated than mere racism?

I'm sorry you're having a problem with the math on this one. It's pretty simple, actually...

I already pointed out why the simplicity is actually misleading. Besides, @Godstud has provided evidence showing you are incorrect.

And since we are now at the point of repeating ourselves, I wish you a pleasant evening.

[BigSteve]

What if the person never went to Klan meetings, did not say racist things, and in general did not act as if they believed in racism and then did this?

Well, if you're ready to demonstrate that the terrorists in Sri Lanka never attended a mosque or uttered an unkind word about Christianity, well, I'm all ears.

Until then, however, given their actions, I'm comfortable concluding that their attack was religiously motivated...

[Pants-of-dog]

I was comparing your hypothetical Klansman to the 9/11 attackers. Your original assertion was about Muslims in general, and it is not up to me to show that every terrorism attack ever perpetrated by a Muslim was done by someone who is not devout.

Evidence has already been shown that many Muslim terrorists are not devout. Thus, the argument that religion is a significant driving force is not true in all attacks. It may not even be true for most of them. It may not be true for the Sri Lanka attacks.

And we currently have no evidence that religion was a significant driving force in the Sri Lanka attacks.

[BigSteve]

And we currently have no evidence that religion was a significant driving force in the Sri Lanka attacks.

If someone beats a gay man while screaming "DIE FAGGOT!", are you going to conclude that the attacker wasn't compelled by a hatred for gay people?

[Pants-of-dog]

I have already addressed this.

Repeating your arguments with slightly different words is not a strong tactic.

[Drlee]

Really POD. It is a bit absurd to assert that Islamic terrorism is political and not religious. Two reasons.

The overwhelming evidence that the individual terrorists are motivated by religious fervor.

The near impossibility to separate Islam from government in Islamic countries.

There are really no true secular Islamic states that I can see. At least not by the definitions accepted in the US and Canada. Can you name a few?

[Pants-of-dog]

Really POD. It is a bit absurd to assert that Islamic terrorism is political and not religious. Two reasons.

The overwhelming evidence that the individual terrorists are motivated by religious fervor.

Please present this evidence. Thanks.

I do not think that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. I think it provides several roles. It unifies the troops and makes them more cohesive if all the soldiers or terrorists are of one religion and all of the enemy are another.

The near impossibility to separate Islam from government in Islamic countries.

There are really no true secular Islamic states that I can see. At least not by the definitions accepted in the US and Canada. Can you name a few?

I am not sure if this is relevant. Terrorists are, by definition, non state actors.

[Drlee]

Please present this evidence. Thanks.

Bite me. I am not going to play that silly game of yours again. This is common knowledge. The fact that you appear not to have this knowledge does not make it any less common.

I do not think that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. I think it provides several roles. It unifies the troops and makes them more cohesive if all the soldiers or terrorists are of one religion and all of the enemy are another.

In the case of Islamic terrorism it is the prime mover for all of the actors. Again. I am not going down that little ruse of yours. Now you can make your usual "you have no evidence or as long as....." post.

[Pants-of-dog]

Bite me.

I am not going to play that silly game of yours again. This is common knowledge. The fact that you appear not to have this knowledge does not make it any less common.

In the case of Islamic terrorism it is the prime mover for all of the actors. Again. I am not going down that little ruse of yours. Now you can make your usual "you have no evidence or as long as....." post.

It does not matter.

@Godstud already presented evidence that religion is not a significant cause of terrorism.

If you wish to continue to claim the opposite in the face of contradicting evidence, go ahead.

If you wish more evidence that you are incorrect, Mr. Pape’s paper “Dying to Win” also provides said evidence.

[Sivad]

It is a bit absurd to assert that Islamic terrorism is political and not religious.

It's equally absurd to claim it's entirely religious.

Drivers of violent extremism

There has been growing understanding that a security-based response to violent extremism should be accompanied by a focus on more preventative efforts. Such current thinking is reflected within the VE Action Plan in which the Secretary-General placed much importance upon context and drivers - the 'push' and 'pull' factors - of violent extremism, together with the processes of radicalization. Generally, the language of 'driver' is used in relation to violent extremism; whereas the term 'pathway' is used with respect to individual radicalization. The VE Action Plan distinguishes between two main categories of drivers (General Assembly report A/70/674, paras. 23 and 32-37; United Nations, Swiss Confederation, 2016, p. 4):

'Push factors': The conditions conducive to violent extremism and the structural context from which it emerges. These include: lack of socio-economic opportunities; marginalization and discrimination; poor governance, violations of human rights and the Rule of Law; prolonged and unresolved conflicts; and radicalization in prisons.

'Pull factors': The individual motivations and processes, which play a key role in transforming ideas and grievances into violent extremist action. These include: individual backgrounds and motivations; collective grievances and victimization stemming from domination, oppression, subjugation or foreign intervention; distortion and misuse of beliefs, political ideologies and ethnic and cultural differences; and leadership and social networks.

Put another way, 'push factors' refer to those factors that are structural within society, whilst 'pull factors' are psychological ones that can render an individual more susceptible to undertaking violent extremist behaviour (Nanes and Lau, 2018).

More specifically, the Plan identifies five primary drivers that are considered to be conducive to violent extremism, namely:

(1) Lack of socio-economic opportunities;

(2) Marginalization and discrimination;

(3) Poor governance, violations of human rights and the rule of law;

(4) Prolonged and unresolved conflicts, and;

(5) Radicalization in prisons.

Each will be considered in turn. At the outset, it is important to emphasize that none of these potential pathways to violence should be considered in isolation, especially since multiple factors will generally be involved. Furthermore, these potential pathways to violent extremism must also be contextualized, with regard to not only local, but also national and international issues.

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/ ... emism.html

[Drlee]

[BigSteve]

I have already addressed this.

Repeating your arguments with slightly different words is not a strong tactic.

You're afraid to answer. Got it.

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]

[Rancid]

I like how the thread already assumes that non-atheists are "normal"

[Pants-of-dog]

You're afraid to answer. Got it.

This is the second time you accuse me of cowardice. Maybe you will again pretend that you did not.

It does not make you any more right or any less wrong.

Nor does it provide evidence for the claim you have failed to support.

[Rancid]

Atheists are more civilized and moral than the normal members of society. They can't just waive responsibility for their action by blaming it on "God's Will", or "Satan".

Moreover, Atheists cannot justify bad behavior in the name of their God.

[Sivad]

There are really no true secular Islamic states that I can see. At least not by the definitions accepted in the US and Canada. Can you name a few?

The arab world was secularizing until the Eisenhower administration decided fundamentalist Islam would make for a good bulwark against Communism and began backing the Muslim Brotherhood. From that point forward the US has been backing radical Islam across North Africa and the Middle East. From Eisenhower and the MB and Operation Ajax to Reagan and the mujahideen to the bipartisan support for Saudi Wahhabism, the US establishment has spent the last 60 years doing its damnedest to underme the secularization and democratization of the muslim world.

[Drlee]

So the answer is no. There are no secular Islamic states.

Thanks for admitting that.

[annatar1914]

So the answer is no. There are no secular Islamic states.

Thanks for admitting that.

Seems pretty sad that one has to go back to first principles of logic, of ''A'' is not ''not-A'' at the same time and in the same relation, of causality and non-contradiction, but here we are. What I find interesting that no Muslim would engage in such pretzel logic (except in certain conditions of war against the Kufr) to explain the actions of Muslim terrorists.

[Godstud]

Yes, and we don't have to use the same twisted logic to explain away Christian/American state terrorism, right?

[Unthinking Majority]

Personal bias aside, the more I observe, the more I become convinced that atheism as a whole appeals more to uncouth and antisocial personalities than to higher society.

I don't think being "uncivilized" has much if anything to do with belief or not in god. I think religious people tend to also be more old-fashioned/traditional, older, more conservative. Religion is an old-fashioned belief.