Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[Wij]

Not in the films I've been watching.

"Having a crisis of faith love? Come over here, I'll give you a crisis...."

...or something.

Exactly. Movies.

Try that with this:

 

[nath]

Exactly. Movies.
Try that with this

I'd hit it*.























And by that I should clarify. I would totally have sex with her.

 

[Scouse]

Meh. A few days single and I'd wank whilst watching you do it...


Anyway. /waves arms for attention. Toht. You about?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anyway. /waves arms for attention. Toht. You about?

Oh look at me! I'm Scouse i need attention!

YEah just got back to my computart, need a bit to read all the replies with some thought(even if it is my Oneeye worshipping thoughts )

 

[old.Tohtori]

Right, well, here goes.

Moosey;

That's an interesting view on it, that even with a promise of eternal bliss, you'd regsard pride(don't take literally) as a larger aspiration. Quite honorable actually.

Regarding day to day basis thinking, from my own POV it doesn't affect it. But that's simply due to the belief being in the background, kinda like breathing, with no worshipping and so forth going on. Ofcourse there's a distinct difference in that and christianity, but in any case the point being that it doesn't necessarily do so.

On the point of regarding people, sensible answer really. Not much is a fair amount really, if it means that it doesn't affect too much into the whole thought process.

DaGaffer;

How about if it was just heaven or nothing? I know the notion of believe or suffer, instantly brings it into the forced camp, so if that was out of the equation, would there be inclination to worship? Or to ask another way; if you didn't worship and your friends family did, you could never see them, would that be insentive enough?

Kinda asking what the limit there is

Agree that everyone should be able to take some pisstaking, as long as it's kept in some form of limits. Afterall, poking fun at short peeps is well and fun(if you're into that), but after a while it stops being that and becomes harasment. Guess my line goes somewhere around that part.

Agree on the final too, when humans start abusing something, be it religion or politics...or hell...cake, it becomes a problem. Religion in it's basis should be just a way for peeps to get together, forget the cash etc. That's when it becomes a way to help some people. Grabbing moneys and forcing people to do stuff, not so much.

Scouse;

It's really hard to have a discussion here, when the post is litered with seeming hostility, or maybe better word; spite. You really shouldn't discuss things, if you feel they are pointless, yet you do.

Like someone said(could've been total biscuit); if you do something that you don't enjoy when you have a choice not to, you're being (insert proper word here).

I can however pick a few things out.

- "That's why religious people in particular are easily manipulated from so-called peace-loving individuals into warmongering arseholes."

This applies to humans, any humans, not just religion. Easily manipulated humans are easily manipulated, religion doesn't make them so.

(I'll ignore the added child comments etc that were in this one) "My question is, what makes the questions you asked above so damn interesting to you?"

They are interesting as it gives food for thought, new perspectives and ultimately, because i find such issues interesting to talk about.

You don't go around insultnig people for discussing every matter that you don't find interesting do you? Or if you do, for the love of bunnies, stop

But from your answer it does seem, note SEEM, like you judge people a lot by religion alone. For example saying they are boring if they discuss these issues, you make it sound like it's ALL they do. Ofcourse it's your choice, but it is closeminded.

 

[nath]

- "That's why religious people in particular are easily manipulated from so-called peace-loving individuals into warmongering arseholes."

This applies to humans, any humans, not just religion. Easily manipulated humans are easily manipulated, religion doesn't make them so.

That I would *strongly* disagree with. Poverty and religion makes people more susceptible to manipulation. Sure, if you're smart enough to see through it then you won't be manipulated but religion gives a foundation, or a structure that can be exploited by those who wish to manipulate.

For example - suicide bombers. If the situation with the middle east was the same as it is now, but the suicide bombers were atheists - do you honestly think they'd do what they do? You don't think the promise of 72 virgins in heaven is manipulation?

 

[old.Tohtori]

That I would *strongly* disagree with. Poverty and religion makes people more susceptible to manipulation. Sure, if you're smart enough to see through it then you won't be manipulated but religion gives a foundation, or a structure that can be exploited by those who wish to manipulate.

For example - suicide bombers. If the situation with the middle east was the same as it is now, but the suicide bombers were atheists - do you honestly think they'd do what they do? You don't think the promise of 72 virgins in heaven is manipulation?

Well you could change the 72 virgins into prosperity for the family, get out of jail free card for a cousin, or even aformentioned cake for your village.

The promise of 72 virgins isn't necessarily intended as maniulation to begin with, but with the "right" people, it can become just that. As said, i don't agree with manipulating people with religion for personal gains.

Even if religion gives a foundation, let's say like a test for who is manipulation agreeable(f*ck me forgot a term here), it's still ultimately the man behind it, using that to other gains then the religion is intended for.

I'm not too learned on the middle eastern religions and such, but many religions aren't supposed to be war-tools.

I would like to point out that i think that a lot of religious folk are believers from a selfish eprspective, it's rare to see someone be religious outside the realm of "It's because i get the epic loots after". As such i do have a form of respect for nuns and monks, atleast they soiw dedication that is in very rare these days.

 

[ford prefect]

That I would *strongly* disagree with. Poverty and religion makes people more susceptible to manipulation. Sure, if you're smart enough to see through it then you won't be manipulated but religion gives a foundation, or a structure that can be exploited by those who wish to manipulate.

For example - suicide bombers. If the situation with the middle east was the same as it is now, but the suicide bombers were atheists - do you honestly think they'd do what they do? You don't think the promise of 72 virgins in heaven is manipulation?

I had promised to stay out of this thread, but I will chip in here - what about the Nazi's?

Hitler said "The great mass of people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." He also said "The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." and lets not forget "What luck for rulers that men don't think!"

If there was ever a master manipulator, it was Hitler and religion really did have very little to do with it. Now sure, he used Christianity to a certain extent and yes, there was some poverty, but Germany was hardly a third world country, but the majority of Hitler’s manipulation was purely political and social propaganda. In that way he managed to turn a Germany from a monarchistic democracy not too disimilar to ours, into a dictatorship in under three years. He also managed to fool large masses of his troops and most of the German public for well over a decade. If ever there was a lesson in how easily people can be manipulated - certainly it is there.

I will crawl back under my rock now.

 

[nath]

Well you could change the 72 virgins into prosperity for the family, get out of jail free card for a cousin, or even aformentioned cake for your village.

The promise of 72 virgins isn't necessarily intended as maniulation to begin with, but with the "right" people, it can become just that. As said, i don't agree with manipulating people with religion for personal gains.

Even if religion gives a foundation, let's say like a test for who is manipulation agreeable(f*ck me forgot a term here), it's still ultimately the man behind it, using that to other gains then the religion is intended for.

I'm not too learned on the middle eastern religions and such, but many religions aren't supposed to be war-tools.

I would like to point out that i think that a lot of religious folk are believers from a selfish eprspective, it's rare to see someone be religious outside the realm of "It's because i get the epic loots after". As such i do have a form of respect for nuns and monks, atleast they soiw dedication that is in very rare these days.

The thing is, if it were people saying "we'll get your brother out of jail" or "we'll look after your family" I very much doubt that'd convince people to become suicide bombers. Suicide bombers genuinely believe (I assume) that they're going to heaven. Additionally, they believe that the brutal murdering of civilians is just as they've been told it's God's will. If they didn't have that to fall back on, if they simply didn't like us for regular reasons and the payback would be a family looked after - I can't imagine for a second that we'd have anywhere near as many suicide bombers. I doubt we'd have any, to be honest.

You seem to want to find this abstract idea of "religion" in general, something that's disconnected from anything specific, and disconnected from any individuals actions. The thing is, I don't think you can do that - religion is a man made thing, therefore all it can be is our actions, beliefs or the texts people are told to believe. Sure the Bible, the Koran and the Torah have some peace 'n love in there, but they also have some heinous horrible stuff too. Sure religious folk have been responsible for very nice actions, but they've been responsible for some absolutely horrific stuff too.

Also, the trouble with religion as opposed to other bullshit ideas that have no evidence, such as homoeopathy, is that religion seeks to explain EVERYTHING and define our lives. I can't imagine ever seeing a homoeopath suicide bombing an NHS hospital because they don't support homoeopathic remedies.

Anyway, sure religion doesn't necessarily make people become manipulators (although I think it does in many ways) but it certainly sets it up. If some cleric is telling a follower that suicide bombing will land him in heaven, it's the BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE that allows that suicide bomber to buy his bullshit.

Anyway, the post is a bit rambling - I had a much better one that wasn't quite so all over the place, but I hit submit as the site went down and lost it :\.

If there was ever a master manipulator, it was Hitler and religion really did have very little to do with it. Now sure, he used Christianity to a certain extent and yes, there was some poverty, but Germany was hardly a third world country, but the majority of Hitler’s manipulation was purely political and social propaganda. In that way he managed to turn a Germany from a monarchistic democracy not too disimilar to ours, into a dictatorship in under three years. He also managed to fool large masses of his troops and most of the German public for well over a decade. If ever there was a lesson in how easily people can be manipulated - certainly it is there.

Just because there are other examples of manipulation does not imply that religion doesn't have a huge affect on making people more susceptible to it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually i want to differentiate between religions, as it kind of irks me whenever i get cast in the same camp as suicide bombers, or the church, because of common features.

Thing about your post is that it's a bit too black&white, since the manipulation and horrific actions of such, while true have happened in the name of religion, doesn't make religion the culprit.

It is however disconnected from individual actions, in the very same way we disconnect games from school shootings.

the bombing is a strong example, but one ahs to note the effect of culture too. You don't see many homeopathic bombers, true, but you don't see many christian suicide bombers in western civilization either.

Humans have done far worse things in the name of oil, land and power, then religion.

 

[nath]

Actually i want to differentiate between religions, as it kind of irks me whenever i get cast in the same camp as suicide bombers, or the church, because of common features.

Thing about your post is that it's a bit too black&white, since the manipulation and horrific actions of such, while true have happened in the name of religion, doesn't make religion the culprit.

It is however disconnected from individual actions, in the very same way we disconnect games from school shootings.

the bombing is a strong example, but one ahs to note the effect of culture too. You don't see many homeopathic bombers, true, but you don't see many christian suicide bombers in western civilization either.

Humans have done far worse things in the name of oil, land and power, then religion.

I think it does make make religion the culprit, for the very reasons I listed. Religious belief coupled with misery and desperation *enable* the thought that yeah, a suicide bombing might be a good idea.

You don't see many Christian suicide bombers no, but you do see lunacy based on flawed thinking. Look at the tea-party movement in the states. People murdering abortion doctors. Wanting creationism taught in schools. Not as extreme, but faulty thinking based on religion that leads them to being completely fucking insane.

Not all all religious folk will be horrible suicide bombers. Not all religions will necessarily lead to suicide bombing or other such madness, but religious belief DOES open you up to manipulation.

Humans have some bad shit that wasn't in the name of religion, that's not really relevant. We're talking about religion and why it has a negative affect. Citing examples of other atrocities doesn't change that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It is relevant as it shows that religion isn't a deciding factor in atrocities. Religious beliefs open you up for manipulation in the same way violent videogames open you up to murder sprees. F*ck and all.

It's up to the person and the chance of them being religious is simply due to them being an easy target for manipulation to begin with.

As i said, if it wasn't religious gifts of afterlife, people would sacrifice themselves for something else.

"I would give my life for my family/wife", completely regular line that gets no condemnation. That is without reward even.

The baseline being, as is with games; faulty wiring in head does not mean the actions of the person are to blame.

If religion turned everyone into a moronic suicide bomber(or crazy people), then yes, you would have a case.

 

[nath]

It is relevant as it shows that religion isn't a deciding factor in atrocities. Religious beliefs open you up for manipulation in the same way violent videogames open you up to murder sprees. F*ck and all.

It's up to the person and the chance of them being religious is simply due to them being an easy target for manipulation to begin with.

As i said, if it wasn't religious gifts of afterlife, people would sacrifice themselves for something else.

"I would give my life for my family/wife", completely regular line that gets no condemnation. That is without reward even.

The baseline being, as is with games; faulty wiring in head does not mean the actions of the person are to blame.

If religion turned everyone into a moronic suicide bomber(or crazy people), then yes, you would have a case.

Comparing it to games is completely invalid. There's no evidence to show that games increase violent tendencies in people. However, suicide bombers are blowing themselves up IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.

People may sacrifice them self for their family, throwing themselves of a proverbial grenade. That's very different to blowing yourself up and taking a load of innocent civilians with you. You need some pretty serious motivation, and some pretty serious belief that you'll be in heaven afterwards to do that sort of thing. Without religion, we would NOT have suicide bombers blowing up civilians. Religious belief is what warps these peoples conscience that everyone has. They know it's wrong to kill civilians, they need to be indoctrinated to put that thought to the back of their head.

And no, I don't need every religious person to prove my point. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I just need a sizeable bunch of people acting a very specific kind of insane in the name of religion. We have that - from suicide bombers, to people who murder abortion doctors, to the smaller things like wanting creationism taught in science class.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If it were only religious people doing stupid/crazy/atrocious things, then i could agree.

As it stands, they're ot the only ones. The only common factor is that they are stupid/crazy/sick enough to do so.

And yes, you do need a large chunk to condemn a whole worldwide issue by the actions of a minority.

How games were relevant to the point is in the f*ck and the all part.

 

[nath]

If it were only religious people doing stupid/crazy/atrocious things, then i could agree.

As it stands, they're ot the only ones. The only common factor is that they are stupid/crazy/sick enough to do so.

And yes, you do need a large chunk to condemn a whole worldwide issue by the actions of a minority.

How games were relevant to the point is in the f*ck and the all part.

Only religious people are detonating themselves in areas crowded with innocent civilians. That's pretty extreme and it's happened enough to discard "oh that random fuck was just nuts". Religion, belief is what convinced them that this was an acceptable course of action. Genuine belief that what they were doing was right.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Only religious people are detonating themselves in areas crowded with innocent civilians. That's pretty extreme and it's happened enough to discard "oh that random fuck was just nuts". Religion, belief is what convinced them that this was an acceptable course of action. Genuine belief that what they were doing was right.

Well that's just plain wrong to start with. Other people, for various reasons(personal manifestos and so forth) blow themselves up as well. Or shoot people. Or drive them over. Plenty of ways innocent get killed by bombers and such that aren't religious. Well, they might be, but the reason isn't religion.

Just because one out of ten kids would turn out into mass murderers because of n'sync, doesn't mean that n'sync makes mass murderers.

The mass murderers just liked n'sync. In those cases, religion could very well be the reason. Haven't talked to a lot of suicide bombers, only heard their leaders claim they did it for the religion.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that the fault isn't in religion and just in f*cked up humans? Is it a fear that there's nothing to blame if it's so, and that you have to accept that this globe is filled with regular folk like you(assuming you're regular) who can snap at any given time?

 

[DaGaffer]

Only religious people are detonating themselves in areas crowded with innocent civilians. That's pretty extreme and it's happened enough to discard "oh that random fuck was just nuts". Religion, belief is what convinced them that this was an acceptable course of action. Genuine belief that what they were doing was right.

Ooh, going to have to stop you there. Agree with the gist of what your saying, but the reality of suicide bombing is a fair bit more complex than that (and I hate to say this, I really do); Toht has a point. There are suicide bombers with a direct religous motivation (the Al Qaeda model), there are suicide bombers with an indirect religous justification, but religion isn't what's motivating them (Palestinians are the best example). A lot of failed Palestinian suicide bombers have been interviewed, and while the reward in heaven was a factor, financial security for their families and nationalistic fervour were their primary motivations. Then you've got a group where religion doesn't come into it at all, such as the Tamil Tigers (and as Hindus suicide is bad thing Karmically).

Now none of this alters your point that religion opens the door to irrational behaviour, but ultimately religion is just a human construct, like nationalism, racism or any other human-created ideology, but that actually strengthens the case for atheism; ideologies can be tested, and if found wanting (like communism) can be discarded, or improved (capitalism for example is a work in progress, although I'm sure its improving). The problem with religion, unlike other ideologies, is that it refuses to be tested (although you could certainly argue that some religions at least try to evolve).

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's annoying when i've actually got a point, confuses me too

I'll try to stop doing that.

On the last point though, i got a bit of a question, hypothetical, but anyway;

Is t possible that, if it grows to massive amounts(certanily seems to grow in popularity every day), atheism can become as dangerous? South park scenario per example(they did it the best ).

I've always found that no matter the idea/situation/belief/add your own, a group of people with a similar mindset can become dangerous.

Atleast i've seen aggressive behaviour in the atheist camp, but is it just venting, or could it lead to more harmful actions?

 

[Scouse]

I'm off out so I'll get to the whole thread later but, just quickly:

Well that's just plain wrong to start with. Other people, for various reasons(personal manifestos and so forth) blow themselves up as well. Or shoot people. Or drive them over. Plenty of ways innocent get killed by bombers and such that aren't religious. Well, they might be, but the reason isn't religion.

I can understand you wanting to expand the argument to include all the other bad shit that people do (despite this specifically being a thread about religion). In a world of 6.5 billion people you can easily find a handful of examples to justify your beliefs. Religious organisations are the only type of organisation that throughout history have demonstrated the ability to achieve blind violent action, almost continuously and on an industrial scale.

However, the thread has nicely come back to the point I made originally - that believing is the problem.

The people who commit those atrocities in the name of "personal manifesto's" etc. believe in what they're doing.

However, religious organisations are built upon the exploitation of the human capacity to perform such an action - and are by far the biggest offenders having the majority of the human race sewn up between them.

The quote about men not thinking is apt. Religion requires you to follow religious dogma - by definition it requires you not to think. Followers of religion are followers of that religion's dogma.

As much as it "irk's" you - it's tough shit Toht. You've made your choice and as much as you detest it and as much as you try to argue the opposite - your choice to perform that action aligns you with all the other non-sense driven religious believers the world over.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well you're a silly atheist who just wants to troll religion to look "cool", much like the damn emo haircut.

That's pretty much as accurate as your claim is.

As said, i don't have a problem with saying "You believe as much as a christian", that's a simple fact, but you can't by any evidence, with only extreme prejucide, put me in the same camp as suicide bombers and religious nutcases killing abortion peeps.

But, as you said, it's easy to find from all the billions of religious people, a handful or psychopaths.

You simply want to put everything in black&white - me against the world scale, so you can feel happy and safe there.

The problem you have is that you think that the very word belief is wrong in any shape or form, while i still doubt your way before point that you don't believe anything. That's simply impossible, or you're one really paranoid man.

 

[Scouse]

I would very much like to carry this argument on. However, when talking about this subject (and trying to actually get somewhere) you're far too emotionally volatile for this to be anything but futile.

Eg:

you can't by any evidence, with only extreme prejucide, put me in the same camp as suicide bombers and religious nutcases killing abortion peeps

I have never tried to suggest that you are or would ever be a suicide bomber or killer.

Your entire post above is complete nonsense but I have little doubt that you believe it to be the truth.



Another (futile) try on belief though:

you don't believe anything. That's simply impossible

I hold no ideas so preciously that reasoned argument and evidence could not make me change my mind.

This is not a feature of belief or a practice of believers.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You do exactly that if you put all religious people in the same section with only "they believe" as a nominator.

As i said, you can't put everyone religious in the same camp, as you yourself seem to agree now.

On the belief part, you yourself said that you hold no belief at all. Not in your vocabulary, not that you don't believe until the end of days. That's competely different.

You're right in one point though; it's futile to talk with you.

You only pick out few lines here and there, take things out of context and then proceed to twist them, without actually answering anything. Not to mention you keep on discussing a matter that doesn't interest you at all. Which makes you either a big ass troll, or a moron. For example, taking five words out of a sentence and basing that as "emotionally volatile" is just ridicilous.

But, done with you. NS.

Though a little disclaimer is apt;

To any other atheists reading this, i don't think of you in the same camp as Scouse, so feel free to ask anything or bring forward a point(even those that would question beliefs, i especially welcome them) as i hold no prejudgement on people absed on what they do or don't believe, like *someone* does.

 

[Scouse]

I just read your post. Like I said. When you're ready to talk about actual reality, rather than what you believe to be true, I'll be a-waiting...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Still curious on this issue, if anyone cares to hypothise;

On the last point though, i got a bit of a question, hypothetical, but anyway;

Is t possible that, if it grows to massive amounts(certanily seems to grow in popularity every day), atheism can become as dangerous? South park scenario per example(they did it the best ).

I've always found that no matter the idea/situation/belief/add your own, a group of people with a similar mindset can become dangerous.

Atleast i've seen aggressive behaviour in the atheist camp, but is it just venting, or could it lead to more harmful actions?

 

[nath]

As dangerous as religion has been/is? I doubt it. Can a group of people claiming to represent atheism do things that rationality and logic would disagree with? Sure.

 

[Ctuchik]

On the last point though, i got a bit of a question, hypothetical, but anyway;

Is t possible that, if it grows to massive amounts(certanily seems to grow in popularity every day), atheism can become as dangerous? South park scenario per example(they did it the best ).

I've always found that no matter the idea/situation/belief/add your own, a group of people with a similar mindset can become dangerous.

Atleast i've seen aggressive behaviour in the atheist camp, but is it just venting, or could it lead to more harmful actions?

I guess the possibility is there.

But it's highly unlikely that a group on atheists would start to organize themselves and end up feeling the need to strap on bombs and go out to blow up civilians in the name of atheism...

The difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists doesn't *need* to prove they are right, they just point at science and that's that.

Religious ppl don't have that, all they have is the bible or quoran(sp?) or whatever they believe in, they don't have anything solid to back up their views with.

Science CAN (as far as it goes) prove that god didn't exist, almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong (again, as far as science can take it). And that is what's making some religious morons so angry, they can't prove science wrong no matter how hard they try because all they have to support their claims with is a 2000+ year old book, so they resort to violence in the name of whatever they believe in "because god told me to"....

All the wars that has involved entire religions has ALWAYS been against other religions, never EVER against atheists...

Atheists has never had as a goal to punish religious ppl, where as religious ppl (not all obviously) are out to punish EVERY ONE that doesn't believe in what they do, even other religious ppl...

So no, i don't think atheists will start some sort of "holy war" against religion, But its a proven fact that religion will, can and have done so against any one who they think is "heathens".

Here's some food for thought tho.

Does violence in the name of religion feed atheism?

I think it does.

 

[Wij]

Still curious on this issue, if anyone cares to hypothise;

Atheists certainly have less motivation to be suicide bombers.

 

[Scouse]

I think that, from an intellectual standpoint, it would be incredibly difficult for people who hold no belief in common to all come to the same consensus that violence against a religion would be the correct course of action.

I can see that individuals could come around to the view that violence would be an answer but not "atheists" as a group - because, by their very definition, they don't hold any common beliefs.


Of course, this is another reason why religious people paint atheism as a "belief in no god" rather than "lack of belief" - because you can't say there's a "common motivating factor" unless they perform the action of believing...

 

[DaGaffer]

The difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists doesn't *need* to prove they are right, they just point at science and that's that.

I've really got to get away from the whole "I agree with Toht thing"; but....I think its niave to assume that "militant atheism" isn't a possibility. After all, there are lots of people on these very boards who point to religion being the source of all evil; so if you applied the logic of radical mahdrassas to an atheist context, you could raise atheists who felt the only way to save the world was by getting rid of religion through violent means. It wouldn't work of course, and it wouldn't actually be about atheism if you thought about it closely, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. You can condition some people to do anything given enough time and effort, and I think a violent anti-religion movement is almost inevitable given human capacity for stupidity and violence.

Atheists certainly have less motivation to be suicide bombers.

True, but "less" doesn't mean "no"; as I pointed out in an earlier post, suicide bombers are motivated by a lot more than 70 virgins.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think that, from an intellectual standpoint, it would be incredibly difficult for people who hold no belief in common to all come to the same consensus that violence against a religion would be the correct course of action.

I can see that individuals could come around to the view that violence would be an answer but not "atheists" as a group - because, by their very definition, they don't hold any common beliefs.


Of course, this is another reason why religious people paint atheism as a "belief in no god" rather than "lack of belief" - because you can't say there's a "common motivating factor" unless they perform the action of believing...

You can make the same claim for religion; violence isn't the majority view in any religion. You can create a common viewpoint amongst atheists if you try hard enough. Of course in theory you'd have to justify violence "scientifically", but that's been successfully achieved in the past.