Woman burned alive for being a witch

[SD-Fiend]

So, to recap: a shaman accused this lady of being a witch, so they burned her?

Is a little consistency in occult policy too much to ask? why not burn both, or neither?

to be specific a shaman is a spirit healer/doctor whilst a witch is...well a witch and witches do bad things as any fairy tale will tell you

 

[Lieju]

"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

And those are the extremists. The ones who pull this shit. Trust me, us "Normal" religious types are just as disgusted by this as everyone else.

Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

Please tell me you mean Extremists......

An extremist just means people who have more extreme beliefs than the majority, so it's completely subjective. Most people who in the 13th century Europe would have been considered 'normal' we would today label extremists.

It really just depends on what group of people you are looking at. Are you talking about all the religious people in the world? Or particular sect or religion?

And what you define to be 'extremism', anyway?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

It's Nepal. They're currently trying to establish a Communist Government. They had a Civil war for years and have only recently got out of it. Of course Extremists are gonna do crud like this. The important thing to remember, however, is that A majority of Religious people, don't do these things.

I'm sorry I don't follow. Communism is sparking up there so CLEARLY they burn witches? I don't see the connection

No, Communism isn't sparking up there, that's why they had a Civil War. The Country is broken basically, and just like in say Afghanistan or Iraq, a Broken Country allows these things to happen.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Well the kids should be put into a programme to give them early training to be Gurkhas... They they can come over to the UK, where I imagine Joanna Lumney will probably take them in! I know she has a soft spot for the Gurkhas and the Nepalese!

 

[debrox]

No, but you come off as sounding like you believe that religion is the primary cause of such behavior, which is nonsense. As I just pointed out, the PRC has proven full well that you don't need religion to commit monstrous acts.


Tell me, are you also against the concept of money? What about the consumption of alcohol? Do you oppose that as well, seeing as how it has ruined families and helps cause abusive parents/spouses? What about the ability to have a political opinion and vote? I mean those two things(political opinion and voting) have lead to war in the past, so why not get rid of those as well? The reason why I'm asking this is because it seems like you only want to focus on the negative side of religion and overlook the good that it does, and if that approach is applied to other things, than why not rally against the concept of money, drinking alcohol, having a political opinion and the ability to vote? Haven't the things I listed also cause problems in this world?

I think you need to take a more moderate/balance outlook on religion.

I said that religion is one of the crazy reasons people kill each other for. Read the post again. If you infer, again, that I think it's the only or even the biggest of the sources for violence, your reading comprehension will come into question.

No, I'm against unfounded beliefs, especially ones that happen to be destructive in one form or another. That Brejvik fellow who shot up close to a hundred people? Not in favor of him.

I think you need to take a more intellectual outlook on reality. I don't think I've said one thing that's even remotely wrong, and I wasn't being particularly insulting to religious people. If I, in fact, did, you're free to point out the flaws in my reasoning. This "be nice" shit that basically means "I don't want to hear it" won't affect me one bit. Not if you say it, not if a million people say it.

Correlation does not equal causation. Leave the use of statistical argument to the big boys who understand it.

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

Ad hominem does not equal a good argument.

 

[need4snacks]

It's a sad reflection on today's society when such things like this are still occurring around the world.

Hopefully one day we can rid ourselves of the kind of ignorance that produces these crimes.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Nearly every religion in existence is responsible for tyranny and pointless bloodshed. Religion is just a means for the privilged elite to control the uneducated and stupid of a population. IMO, the more educated a population becomes, the less religious they become. Scientific inquiry replaces superstition, egalitarianism replaces hierarchy, tolerance replaces hatred. Religion is a blight on humanity which needs to be abandoned in the 21st century. The positive aspects of religion have been incorporated into secular democratic society, it is time to move on.

This barbaric act shows how far behind the curve some nations really are. If nations like Nepal, Afganistan, Palestine or Israel ever want to develop into peaceful democratic nations, their populous needs to first abandon their hardcore religious beliefs, otherwise it is all a big waste of time...good luck.

 

[debrox]

Ad hominem does not equal a good argument.

This coming from a person calling themselves a big boy with the implication that the person they're quoting isn't one. All I did was point out the irony of your statement.

People who make jokes about mothers brutally murdered for no reason in front of their 8 year old daughter are pretty damn close. Don't patronise to me and take 5 seconds to think before you get high and mighty. When it comes down to it I'm fairly certain you agree with me, Unless perhaps you'd like to laugh at this sort of thing? Go on, Tell me a joke about a modern day witch burning in front of a minor. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

I'll keep this brief. I don't think people who joke about something - anything - are in any case worse than people who inflict actual bodily harm with no justification.

And I have no problem with black humor.

Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

 

[debrox]

Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Note: I'm barely responding at this point.

First, what you call your argument could barely even be described as a sentence. Don't refer to it as some supreme put down or drop of knowledge. Second, I did address your argument. Third, you have no basis on which to invoke the Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. All you're doing, twice in a row, is throwing latin at me, presumably in hopes that I'll cower in awe of your rhetorical skills.

The straw man fallacy does not equal a good argument.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

Please tell me you mean Extremists......

"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

Moderates are better to be sure, but don't even imply that one is completely different from the other.

The point of that story was to differentiate the judeo-christian God from barbaric, pagan religions. Besides, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

 

[debrox]

Correlation does not equal causation. Leave the use of statistical argument to the big boys who understand it.

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

I am assuming something that is a necessity for his thoughts to be coherent:

I don't mind religion in general but it's things like these that sometimes make me hate it. People killing other people over pure fiction. And in such a horrible way. Bah! Makes me sick.

Don't get me wrong. Religion has it's good things too. Acts like these just sometimes make those good things hard to see.

People do stupid shit constantly, religion is merely a wayward justification. If religion weren't there, they'd find some other justification to be stupid assholes.

Would it be better if the woman was burned for monetary or political purposes (which I suspect are closer to the true reasons)? I somehow doubt she or her children would care.

Without religion, it would be one less crazy justification for killing people, and that's the whole point. Also, your assertion that without religion people would still kill each other just the same is downright false, as evidenced by the statistical fact that the least religious countries in, at least, western society, have the lowest criminal rates in the entire world.

The bolded part probably means that you either haven't been around religious people enough or are religious yourself and are rationalising your beliefs. Religions shape people's perception of reality, don't you dare tell anyone they're "merely" anything.

So his premise is lower amounts of religion correspond statistically (i.e. correlate with) lower amounts of violence. His second (implied) premise is that this correlation demonstrates causation, using the cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Therefore, he concludes, the religious violence absent in a less religious country is not replaced by other avenues of violence. His conclusion, which he expressly stated, makes no sense without the implied premise.