Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.

What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.

Not always so certain of that. Often you find an underlying reason for these. However, if we look at the Islamitic Republic of Iran, we find that fundamentalism there is not as strong as it seems. Stem cell research is encouraged, abortus is permitted as well as the cloning of animals. The society is far from perfect, with lots of antiwestern feelings, and repression of certain minorities, but this is easily explained if you look at recent history(First the west sponsored a dictator, and when the revolution came, they sponsored Saddam Husein in his attack against the Iranian state). But over the last few years we've seen general improvements in religious freedom, as well as other things. (Despite being third on the list of countries persecuting Christians, the Christian minority is quite well of, provided they don't try to voice their beliefs.)

Iran may not be that bad, but it is pretty bad. The religious freedoms given is an example of defundamentalising , as well as something that would allow the split between different religions to grow, which will be more likely to result in more reductions in fundamentalism (or else no country could relax any laws that are the result of fundamentalism and of which the relaxing of would encourage the growth of minority beliefs because it would just cause fundamentalism to grow again and go back to square one)

If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.

And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becoming more irrelevant to society.

Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.*

See the above example. There are also many examples of countries during history where you got near 100% religion of one sort and where that sort of things didn't happen.

It's quite easy to feel threatened or repressed if you get people saying your beliefs are irrational, false and should be forbidden. While these form only a minority, it's often enough to give a hostile impression.

There are some examples, but they are in the minority. Understandably, if anyone said someone's beliefs should be forbidden, then they may react negatively. I still don't see how an increase in the split between two beliefs/lack-of-beliefs will lead to fundamentalism, or at least in any influencial form.

It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread

How so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.

Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.

It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.

Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.

Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.

Bleh, are you unimaginative. There are more than enough reasons for suicide bombins. Nationalism is a strong one, for example. Several people are willing to give up their life for their ideals, for freedom. See the entire Israel-Palestinian problem. The Palestinians don't want to bomb the Jews(and by extension their supporters in other, western countries) because of their religion, but because they took their land.

How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.

I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.

((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar argument))

Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.

A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself.

Never did I say that religion is bad due to Hitler in any way. Never did I use this as an argument to prove religion is bad. The discussion was about Hitler/Nazi's, "I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions." and I was trying to demonstrate the possibility that it may have been more than a justification, never that this proves that religion is bad because of it. How else am I supposed to put this forth this as an argument without mentioning Hitler? Likewise with the Evolution comparison. Hitler may have used some understanding of evolution to do these things, along with religion, but that does not imply that these things are bad, nor did I ever say that. Religion's good/bad status is not affected by Hitler.

The quote I gave was to show a possible counterpoint, not to imply that religion is bad because Hitler liked it.

This is fallacious use of a fallacy.

[10ebbor10]

There are some examples, but they are in the minority. Understandably, if anyone said someone's beliefs should be forbidden, then they may react negatively. I still don't see how an increase in the split between two beliefs/lack-of-beliefs will lead to fundamentalism, or at least in any influencial form.

It's not the split that cause the fundamentalization, but anonimousity between 2 factions. Even if these only form minorities on both sides, things can escalate.

It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread

How so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.

Such as...

Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.

It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.

You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method.  Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.

How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.

Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.

In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.

I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.

((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar argument))

Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.

A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself.

Never did I say that religion is bad due to Hitler in any way. Never did I use this as an argument to prove religion is bad. The discussion was about Hitler/Nazi's, "I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions." and I was trying to demonstrate the possibility that it may have been more than a justification, never that this proves that religion is bad because of it. How else am I supposed to put this forth this as an argument without mentioning Hitler? Likewise with the Evolution comparison. Hitler may have used some understanding of evolution to do these things, along with religion, but that does not imply that these things are bad, nor did I ever say that. Religion's good/bad status is not affected by Hitler.

The quote I gave was to show a possible counterpoint, not to imply that religion is bad because Hitler liked it.

This is fallacious use of a fallacy.

The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.

Also, see the bolded part. Nazi party used dogma's, The church uses dogma's, hence, Church caused holocaust. Though you should be able to question your beliefs, and actually, in many situations you can.

[alexandertnt]

It's not the split that cause the fundamentalization, but anonimousity between 2 factions. Even if these only form minorities on both sides, things can escalate.

I couldn't find a definition for "anonimousity" when I put it in google (Of course, this does not imply the validity/invalidity of any argument, I just literally couldn't find a definition).

Just for clarity, I assumed that the argument is in regards to the changing sizes of each group. Now I reread, it could have meant changing beliefs or something else. I still don't see how it would necessarily cause an increase in fundamentalism though.

It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread

How so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.

Such as...

Perhaps I mistope "Doesn't make sence" with "is not correct". This would be my mistake.

Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.

It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.

You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method.  Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.

My quick googling doesn't seem to reveal anything about Zeno's paradoxes which is actually rational. But my search was quick.

Okay, something being rational does not make it a science. My sleep-deprived-ness did not help here.

How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.

Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.

In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.

You had stated that "religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used" implying that religion is never the cause (otherwise it would be "not always", or "sometimes" etc). I do not need a correlation of any sorts, only one causality. (I may have taken this out of context - the quote trees have grown quite large since.)

Also, why are fundamentalists not representitive of a religion?

As to whether it is a significant cause is something else, and something my statement does not prove.

Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other

I am not entirely sure of the meaning of this though, especially in in regards to the questions "How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another?". A causation or correlation does not require a majority.

The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.

Oh, it was not directed at my argument. I Think the use of the word 'was' instead of 'is' probably would have made it clearer but fair enough. I was sort of wondering where Hitler had come from anyway.

[10ebbor10]

It means my computer spellcheck is badly broken. As well as me being quite confused. I meant animosity.

Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.

It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.

You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method.  Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.

My quick googling doesn't seem to reveal anything about Zeno's paradoxes which is actually rational. But my search was quick.

Okay, something being rational does not make it a science. My sleep-deprived-ness did not help here. Zeno's paradoxes are completely logical and rational. They're not irrational, but just wrong.

How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.

Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.

In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.

You had stated that "religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used" implying that religion is never the cause (otherwise it would be "not always", or "sometimes" etc). I do not need a correlation of any sorts, only one causality. (I may have taken this out of context - the quote trees have grown quite large since.) You do need to prove a correlation. Otherwise, I could prove that party hats sometimes cause murder with the single argument that one time someone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.

Also, why are fundamentalists not representitive of a religion?Because they make up less than 5%(depending on sources) of the religious population.

As to whether it is a significant cause is something else, and something my statement does not prove.

Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other

I am not entirely sure of the meaning of this though, especially in in regards to the questions "How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another?". A causation or correlation does not require a majority. You do need to prove a Correlation.

 A notion that is probably correct is that a fundamentalist intrepretation can cause such things(and probably does). That doesn't say anything about the invalidity or evilness of the rest of religion, which is often implied in these arguments.

The point I'm trying to make is that religion isn't a bad thing on itself, but that it can be used as an excuse/motivation for bad things, this more so with more fundamentalist intrepretations than with others. 
[/quote]

[Leafsnail]

How am I supposed to argue with red truth??

[10ebbor10]

How am I supposed to argue with red truth??

Yeah, I know it's annoying, but it's much easier to write. I'll try not to do it in the future.

[Starver]

USSR, PRC, etc were indeed worse after suppressing religion, but it is important not to ignore how religion was suppressed. Specifically, religion in those countries was supplanted by the rise of other ideas such as totalitarian communism[...]

I'm not sure if this point will already have been made, but it's quite possible to describe totalitarian communism (and other creeds) as a replacement religion...

[Starver]

It seems I've been ignored 

O well.

It's the speed of the thread.  A number of things I've said have been ignored (even when timely and not already flooded with intermediate messages).  Probably mostly because of people who haven't read my bits yet (who are writing when I'm in the intermediate message-flood that they haven't got through yet).

Sometimes I choose to believe that what I say is just so reasonable that nobody has any objection.   (However when I briefly brought up Spinoza, I notices someone, I forget who and possibly even you, noticing and adding to that.)

Give how you were (still are?) at hammer and tongs with one of the others, that might not be the same for you, but you never know.  But that's the trouble with such asynchronously one might find in this thread.  Mind you, I was always used in the past to conducting Usenet discussions.  With threading and nested branches you end up with an interesting "everyone wants to reply to everyone" exponential explosion, at times, especially after The Eternal September came around on even previously chatty newsgroups.  Probably 'nicer' to just have one chronology (per subject) with an obvious "things may have moved on" indicator.

[Starver]

...and, talking about Usenet, I think a Godwin Limit has been reached on some bits of it.

Also possibly the modern equivalent of "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED", except using colours.

[fqllve]

Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that you're saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.

Ok, I see how you can come to the conclusion that it would have to increase, and of course that would be ridiculous but just because something doesn't decrease (or decrease in any significant or measurable way) when you get rid of religion does not mean there is something else inspiring more people to do these things, rather two things, that A) that most actions have a number of causes and even actions that are highly religiously motivated have other underlying factors so that dismissing them in the absence of religion is specious, and B) that killing in the exact ways that religion is most fond of do not have to rise for the total number of violent crimes to see little or no statistically significant change.

took me 1 google search to find.

Oh come on, it sounds like you're chastising me here. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a link from the one who has made the statement and is therefore likely able to source it better that I would with half hour of searching on Google.

Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.

You say it as if it's unlikely to have been a fraud. Most of my information is based on remarks from Speer and quotes he attributed to Hitler, so it's no first hand source, but would it really be that surprising if Hitler was just using religion to manipulate people as he did many other things?

Also, the statement that the Holocaust was carried out because God was backing it is... a very simplistic distillation of an extraordinarily complex subject. No one thing could have caused atrocity on the level of the Holocaust and to couch it in such terms is to do a disservice to history. Look at Nazi statements about Poles and the Roma. Look at the treatment of Soviet POWs or political dissenters. I think the devastation of the Poles in particular shows that the Holocaust was about more than just religion.

The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.

Micro? I haven't seen him do any such thing. Rather the discussion was whether or not the Holocaust was primarily religiously motivated, and Hitler's personal beliefs, being one of the people largely responsible for this, are relevant.

[Micro102]

How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in? I've stated a whole lot of sensible motives. Religion is often molded by the society it's founded in, so you need to look for the problems there, not with the religion. What kind of conspiracy world are you living in that you believe that there's a giant organised system causing evil on large scales, while being supported by large parts of the population and justifying it's actions by stating it's doing just the reverse of what you're accusing it of.


As for Hitler...

1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.Not anymore than that they believed they were the master race, and that the Jews were bad(And not because their religion said so.).

2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?Because he was a Lutheran Christian. They have radically different visions on certain parts, but there was no real animousity at that point in time. He did target mormons for example, as well as several other minorities. Not because the religion said him to do so, but because they were easy targets.

3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion? Do you really need to ask that question? If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.

I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.Trust me, I have that feeling a lot around here.

Yes you've stated a bunch of sensible reasons that people could commit horrible acts. So what? How does that automatically make it so religious based horrrible acts are not something that should be focused on? Or are you saying that these problems are already going to happen and religion just is tacked on? And yes religion is founded on the society it was created by. Hence the Bible was based off the culture of a bunch of pillaging and raping Jewish people. And now it is a book that people worship as the word of God. To deal with the problem of that society is to dismiss the Bible as not the word of God, as just an immoral book. And I agree with this, but do you really think that the current religions would stand if that happened? This is what I mean by getting rid of religion.

Yes, But hitler believing that there should be a master race is also a huge factor. But it doesn't excuse religion's role in this. What do you think would sway more people to allow mass murdering to occur? "God wishes this", or "this race is superior"?

Jews WERE targetted mainly because of religion. Hitler choose them and other weak targets. They were weak because they were discriminated against, because of their religion. And religion OS what made people turn the other cheek to the slaughter.

And fundementalism is not special to the struggle between atheists and theists. I don't even know why you brought that up.


EDIT: editing quotes on a phone is too time consuming, if you expecting a reply from me, it will have to wait.

[EveryZig]

Some people here seem to be arguing that religion is not itself bad, but is merely a convenient excuse for anything.
I would say that being a convenient excuse for anything is itself a bad thing, as it gives bad ideas an easy route to authority with minimal examination. (Good ideas would have an easy time too, but as good ideas they would presumably withstand examination better and therefore be favored more by higher standards.)

[Micro102]

Ok, I see how you can come to the conclusion that it would have to increase, and of course that would be ridiculous but just because something doesn't decrease (or decrease in any significant or measurable way) when you get rid of religion does not mean there is something else inspiring more people to do these things, rather two things, that A) that most actions have a number of causes and even actions that are highly religiously motivated have other underlying factors so that dismissing them in the absence of religion is specious, and B) that killing in the exact ways that religion is most fond of do not have to rise for the total number of violent crimes to see little or no statistically significant change.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you rephrase it?

You say it as if it's unlikely to have been a fraud. Most of my information is based on remarks from Speer and quotes he attributed to Hitler, so it's no first hand source, but would it really be that surprising if Hitler was just using religion to manipulate people as he did many other things?

Also, the statement that the Holocaust was carried out because God was backing it is... a very simplistic distillation of an extraordinarily complex subject. No one thing could have caused atrocity on the level of the Holocaust and to couch it in such terms is to do a disservice to history. Look at Nazi statements about Poles and the Roma. Look at the treatment of Soviet POWs or political dissenters. I think the devastation of the Poles in particular shows that the Holocaust was about more than just religion.

Sorry if I came off that way. I feel it is more plausible that religion was not the main factor for Hitlers actions, but just a very strong tool to sway the masses to accept his actions. But I don't discount the possibility that he did this for religious reasons.

When I said God was backing it, I was showing the viewpoint that religious believers would have. No, one thing did not cause the holocaust, but without religion, I don't think it would have happened. Religion is a very strong force. You have a massive community who all share similar beliefs, and the major religions believe there is an all knowing, morally correct being watching over you. There is no large, heavily assimilated community connected to the idea of a superior race or anything like that. Maybe to the discrimination towards Jews at the time, but then how much of that was due to religion?

Micro? I haven't seen him do any such thing. Rather the discussion was whether or not the Holocaust was primarily religiously motivated, and Hitler's personal beliefs, being one of the people largely responsible for this, are relevant.

While Hitler's personal beliefs would be important, I have no way of knowing what they were, so lets stick with religion regarding the population.

Some people here seem to be arguing that religion is not itself bad, but is merely a convenient excuse for anything.
I would say that being a convenient excuse for anything is itself a bad thing, as it gives bad ideas an easy route to authority with minimal examination. (Good ideas would have an easy time too, but as good ideas they would presumably withstand examination better and therefore be favored more by higher standards.)

So true, but from what I can reading, they are also arguing that it's not just an excuse, but that if it didn't exist, the same amount of problems would exist under a different excuse. I hope I'm wrong in reading that because it makes no sense. Christians going to heaven is a strong factor regarding death, but you can't really replicate that without religion.

[fqllve]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you rephrase it?

Ok.

Let's take my example for a highly religiously motivated action, anti-abortion terrorism. Now the primary cause of this is clearly religious, but if you examine actual cases of it the situation becomes far more complex. First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief. Which is why some of the most heinous acts of anti-abortion terrorism could be performed by someone who "prefer(s) Nietzche to the Bible." Further, the belief that abortion is condemned by God does not seem sufficient to motivate people to commit such crimes, rather there seem to be political motivators as well and people who commit these acts are often disaffected from society and bitter exhibiting antisocial tendencies and in some cases psychosis. Most of these individuals are troubled, such as Scott Philip Roeder who came to religion through his anti-government sentiments and not the other way around.

Which is to say, that the causes of such actions are so complex that to suggest that even the majority of them would not have happened if religion was not in the picture is to oversimplify. In most cases we have absolutely no way of knowing, but it's worth pointing out that the majority of those cases were property crimes, however in many of the most severe cases it seems likely that the person was unstable already, whether or not they were so unstable as to commit their crimes is also, however, impossible to say.

As for the second point, it has nothing to do with excuses and everything to do with human nature. In terms of governmental atrocities? I do not think they would be lessened at all because nationalism will still exist, and nationalism has been linked with nearly every case of governmental religious violence I can think of and has shown itself just as capable of travesty as religion is on it's own. In terms of terrorist acts, there would likely be some dropoff, but perhaps not as much as you'd expect. Because, as above, even without religion many of the factors involved in such acts will remain, and those factors which are religious are often not directly religious (as in an explicit consequence of religious belief, in general, not of any particular religious beliefs) or inherently religious (as in requiring religion to exist). The closest to these I can think of that is inherently religious is belief in an afterlife, and it is still possible without religion, at least under my definition of religion (which is that supernatural beliefs are not inherently religious). Which means that in absence of explicitly religious factors the factors that were most important to the terrorist actions would remain the same. I do not think there would be any change in violent or non-violent civilian crime.

Sorry if I came off that way. I feel it is more plausible that religion was not the main factor for Hitlers actions, but just a very strong tool to sway the masses to accept his actions. But I don't discount the possibility that he did this for religious reasons.

When I said God was backing it, I was showing the viewpoint that religious believers would have. No, one thing did not cause the holocaust, but without religion, I don't think it would have happened. Religion is a very strong force. You have a massive community who all share similar beliefs, and the major religions believe there is an all knowing, morally correct being watching over you. There is no large, heavily assimilated community connected to the idea of a superior race or anything like that. Maybe to the discrimination towards Jews at the time, but then how much of that was due to religion?

How do you mean due to religion? Because in the strictest sense that would mean "related to the religious beliefs of the Jews or the perpetrators of the crimes against them" in which case I'd say that antisemitism has historically had little to do with religious beliefs, with one particularly prominent exception. To support that, just look at antisemitism during the Black Death, clearly not religiously motivated at all. The only case where I can think of antisemitism being explicitly linked to religious belief is the one where Christians blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. As far as I'm aware that hasn't really manifested as a motivator for wide scale antisemitic violence, but I could easily be wrong on that score.

Also, you're wrong about there not being an assimilated community based on racial superiority. In fact there are plenty of those (though they are not popular on the scale that religion is) and further nationalism (which is popular on the scale religion is), a belief system very similar to the idea of racial superiority, also has such groups. It's sad, but I don't think the Nazis even needed to use religious propaganda to get people on their side, certainly they attracted some people they otherwise might not have, but I think it would have been sufficient without that. It's also worth pointing out that in the late thirties Pope Pius explicitly denounced Nazi racist ideology and acceptance of Nazism even among German clergy was not universal. If the Pope tells you one thing and the Archbishop another people are forced to conclude on their own, and I don't think any factors that would have made them conclude on the side of antisemitism were related to religion. They were related to seeing wealthy Jews, they were related to cultural tensions, they look different, talk different, act different, and they were related to the astonishing breadth of Nazi antisemitism which took myriad forms through just as many justifications.

While Hitler's personal beliefs would be important, I have no way of knowing what they were, so lets stick with religion regarding the population.

That's fine, I was just pointing out he was completely misrepresenting your argument.

[alexandertnt]

Someone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.

The is not representitive of my argument, since I am finding an example where religion was the cause, not just that someone doing the crime was religious (someome murdered someome because of the party hat, not just happened to be wearing it. If someome murdered directly due to wearing a party hat, then wearing a party hat would sometimes cause murder).

I am not trying to show that religion is bad overall, or even that there is a correlation between religion and bad things.

Besides,

Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing has identified both religious and sociopolitical motivations. Those who cite religious factors as an important influence note that religion provides the framework because the bombers believe they are acting in the name of Islam and will be rewarded as martyrs.

I also can not find any information on Causation !=> Correlation on the internet (all the results are the other way around, unsuprisingly.). I would be literally interested in a link on an explanation, since with respect to Correlation !=> Causation (which we know is right, and is the only think I have to go on) (A !=> B) !=> (B !=> A).