Religion

[Kudistos Megistos]

Many facts.  There could be millions of them shot back and forth.  Clearly the answer is we don't know

That's a very "high school history essay" answer.

We can't know the answer to certain questions (at least not without some kind of Laplace's demon device), but some answers to these questions are more firmly supported by the evidence than others.

Without religion what other reasons would arrise to murder each other.

Bagels

They will be the motive and the weapon in all murders once religion has been eliminated.

In the absence of religion, many people who would otherwise not murder, would start to.

How many? And why do you believe this? A positive correlation between religiosity and violence can be seen across the world, even when you account for income.

Maybe it's a co-incidence that the most religious countries within various income brackets tend to have the most psychopathic killers running around, whereas the most secular ones have the lowest murder rates? (this is a general correlation, I hope no-one accuses me of saying that it's a perfect one).

Maybe, as some seem to believe, we would have a wonderful world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.

Can you tell me who has said that? I have never, in my whole life, heard anyone say that or anything approaching it.

Am I supposed to have said it?

Should I stop bothering to respond to what people actually say and instead respond to what I wish they had said?

 

[Mako]

You can indeed say with certainty that you believe that.

It still won't be true.

How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.

The claim that religious people are more charitable comes up very often

That's cause it's highly debatable.

I haven't personally noticed religious people being any more charitable than non-religious people

This is highly irregular :/.

as I said, the biggest organisations tend to be secular

This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.

Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.

Take this group giftofhope even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.

But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.

That's cause it's highly debatable.
This is highly irregular :/.

This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.

Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.

Take this group giftofhope even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.

But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.

Yes, but there's one thing you've forgotten.

America is crazy!

Really, you can't assume that what happens in the US is of any relevance to a debate about a global issue . I sometimes think that the US doesn't exist and that the concept of it was created by the government and the media to troll us. A place like that can't exist, surely? Where you have schoolchildren driving around in cars but you can't drink until you're 21? Where little kids are trusted with guns but adults aren't even allowed to play poker? Where Two And A Half Men is classified as "comedy"? Such a place can't exist; it must be a bad joke! ;D

But seriously, the situation you described is very unusual and, I suspect, unique to the US.
People from other developed countries seem to be fully capable of helping their fellow man without being motivated by the reward of heaven.

 

[Mako]

Bah, what is this "other" you speak of? Everybody knows there is nothing beyond the great wall :-D

 

[xLostWingx]

Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand. 
Bob: How do you know? 
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim:  The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
---------------------------
Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist?  Correlation does not indicate causation.  Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.

Bagels.  Why not?  Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world.  Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man.  Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed.  Why would you pretend like you do/could?

Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.''  But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world.  That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.

I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it.  I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it.  You can't say that.  If you do, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand. 
Bob: How do you know? 
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim:  The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.

And, by Occam's razor, Jim's assumption would be quite reasonable. It would be for Bob to prove that there are other kinds of sand.

Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist?  Correlation does not indicate causation.  Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing "look over there".

Bagels.  Why not?  Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world.  Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man.  Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed.  Why would you pretend like you do/could?

The mistake you make, and you're not the first one to make it (in fact, I think I've picked you up on this before) is that you create a false dichotomy between things that are known and things that are just wild guesses with no evidence at all. This is absurd. There are crazy conjectures, and there are things that, whilst not proven, are sensible to assume. If we can't be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, does that mean the assumption that it will is just as baseless as the assumption that it won't?

If you think that both assumptions are equally baseless, then you have just reduced your argument to absurdity.

Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.''  But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world.

And do you disagree with this?

Would you like to argue that AIDS would be as rampant if pastors had not told their sheep that condoms are useless, or that they actually cause AIDS? Do you think that The elimination of polio would have been so fraught with trouble if imams hadn't told their followers that the vaccines were part of a Western plot and forbidden their use?

And would you disagree that the hundreds of millions of women who have had their clitorises cut off were made miserable? What about those who are made subservient to and property of their husbands, because that is God's will? Do you think gay people in countries where the Abrahamic religions still drive lawmaking are happy? And what about people who live in countries that have been torn apart by religious conflict? In Iraq, in Sudan, in Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka and in the former Yugoslav states? In all the other countries that I can't think of at the moment? Do you think the families of the millions of people who died in the partition of India, a partition designed to create separate Hindu and Muslim states?

If you don't disagree, then why are you questioning my statement?

That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.

You must take responsibility for your actions.

I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it.  I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it.  You can't say that.  If you do, it doesn't mean anything.

When did I say that I "know"? There you go again, accusing me of saying things that I have not said and that I have repeatedly and explicitly denied.

Srsly, why do you think you can get away with that? Do you think that I won't remember what I've said and that I'm unable to look back on my own posts? It's incredibly insulting to accuse me of saying things I haven't said and think I won't notice.

 

[Jaitsu]

do remember there are other places that matter other then your native country.

where i live, i find there are charitable people that aren't religious just as much as there are religious charitables, especially the legion in my town.

 

[xLostWingx]

I am not disagreeing with the negetive influence that religion has had on the world.  I am saying two things.

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.

You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion.  But you can't say what would be happening.  I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway.  Before I hear anymore about false dichotmies, these are analogies, they are not perfect representations of what we are talking about, obviously.  Propose a true dichotomy that we can work with.  You may say there isn't one, fine.  I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do.  I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way.  Now I do.  I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.

 

[yarLson]

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

1. your absolutely right, but to even pretend like things are going to get better while it remains a dominant economic force is absolute insanity. The literal definition of insanity is to try the same thing multiple times while expecting a different result to happen. Nothing I can think of embodies this better than religion. The obvious answer in this case would be to try something else, perhaps science which requires that something have a series of vigorous tests to prove its legitmacy before being widely accepted. Maybe it won't help, but its better than remaining stagnant.

2.Yes right again, hopefully that thing is science 

I don't think people will ever stop killing each other. This is not my best quality, but let me try to paint a picture. To me war is as natural and as beneficial as breathing, but any natural thing can be manipulated, by intelligent entities, to become very unatural occurences. For example imagine all you did all day was sit at your computer yet your breathing was as rapid as if you were running a marathon constantly. This kind of breathing is not healthy or by any means natural. Similarly, the way we express our natural inclanation of warfare has become pathological and extremely unhealthy. I don't know if any of you have ever heard of an economic hitman, but this is one very good example of what I am talking about. It has begun to degrade the quality of life for people on every continent and only for the sake of spreading more blind hatred fueled by ignorance, ultimately resulting in unneeded and unwanted death, over something as simple; as meaningless as a piece of paper with fancy symbols on it. I know its not the best example but hopefully you get the idea. I am not saying do away with the monitary system necissarily, but I am saying that we need to shift focus as a society (because I believe that on an individual basis most people already know but are forced into this inefficient way of doing things) and realize that what truly matters is what we spend our money on, and not the money itself. This balls to the wall rambo approach of making money at any and all costs has got to at least be slowed. Right now it is actually growing.

I think that what we really need right now as a global society, is to emphasize the importance of education at a young age. And I don't mean this plus/minus pledge of allegiance bullshit. I'm talking calculus, computer science and programming, physics, chemistry, uncensored history, political science; the works.

It won't make the world a perfect place, but at least it will help to stop the mass manipulation that mascarades as politics for the last couple decades. It is much more difficult to manipulate a mind that is fully aware of the dynamics of causality and logical progression.

At least then a lot more of the wars that are fought will have a logically sound reasoning behind them.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.

If religion causes bad things and the bad outweighs the good, then yes, it is sensible to believe we would be better off without it.

2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

Like what? Give a specific example and a reason why you think it would happen. Don't say absolutist politics: religion and absolutist politics are perfectly capable of co-existing, and there has been no difference between the barbarism in secular totalitarian states and the barbarism in religious ones.

What new thing would take its place? And why do you assert this with such confidence? Do you have any reason to believe that there is something specific that will replace religion, or is it a matter of faith?

Until you can give a an example of something that will replace religion and a reason why you think it will replace it, your argument holds no weight.

If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.

Even as an analogy, this fails.

Or rather, it proves my point.

If there were no guns, there would still be means of killing people, but these means of killing people would be either less effective (such as knives) or harder to obtain (such as explosives and non-conventional weapons). There would still be killing, but probably quite a bit less of it.

You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion.  But you can't say what would be happening.  I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway.

If we followed your logic, we wouldn't be able to discuss anything and we wouldn't be able to say there is anything that we should get rid of.

Some people might say that the world would be a better place if people didn't murder children, but by your logic, we'd have to say that we might be better off with a few child murders because one of those murdered children might have grown up to be the next Hitler.

I wonder how you manage to plan for the future. I mean, you seem incapable of discussing hypothetical scenarios due to an excessive and debilitating scepticism and an inability to distinguish between educated guesses and wild guesses. Do you abstain from planning anything because you don't know for certain what the future will bring? Do you abstain from buying food because there's a small chance that you might develop an allergy overnight? Do you abstain from putting money into the bank because the currency might collapse tomorrow?

You say that we can't even make educated guesses about the future, but you seem to believe as a matter of faith that something will replace religion and it will keep the balance of good things and bad things exactly the same as it was. You don't know what this is and you don't give any reasons why this should happen, but you're certain that something will come along.

This belief is almost religious. Are you one of those people who believes in some pseudo-oriental "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" philosophies? Do you think that there's some law of history that asserts that when a bad thing is eliminated, something will come to take its place and restore the balance? And if so, why should be take you seriously?

I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do.

Even when I say that I don't?

Be careful, you might end up with a rape charge if you keep on like that:

Yes, I know that she said "Ew! I'd rather stick a wolverine in my vagina than have sex with you!" but her language wiggled its eyebrows and gestures furtively to suggest that she did want the lostwing cock.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way.

Yes you are trying to convince me. Don't pretend that you're not. If you weren't, you wouldn't still be arguing.

Now I do.

MR SCEPTIC KNOWS SOMETHING!

That's amusing. You claim that we can't even make guesses about the future, but you think you know what goes on in my mind? When the problem of other minds is one of the biggest in philosophy? And you claim to know why I think the way I do even though you've consistently shown that you don't even know what I think? This is most intriguing. Tell me how you know why I think the way I do. And tell me why I think the way I do.

I ask this because your interpretation will tell me something hilarious about you.

I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.

Give examples.

Until you do, I'm going to dismiss this as trying to make excuses for your intellectually dishonest behaviour.

 

[xLostWingx]

If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate.  If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?  You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.  If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right.  But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.  Without religion, humanity would have developed differently.  If you mean everyone, right now, would be better off if religion vanished completely, that is something entirely different than a scenario in which religion never existed to begin with.

Maybe nothng would "take religion's place" but the priorities of everything else in the world would be shifted. 

No, supply and demand.  If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher.  Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.  It is not as if warfare regresses because gun's don't get invented. 

You can make wild guesses appear educated.  Lawyers do it all the time.

So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden.  And you say that I insult you.

You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.  As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas.  I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."

Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.

 

[Covarr]

xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.

You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.

He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.

You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.

He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.

While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and  makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.

tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.

 

[m35]

1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.

You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.

No here's how it works:

I make an assertion with evidence. Until you can prove that my evidence is irrelevant, that the conclusion can't follow from it or that there is better evidence supporting the opposing argument, I am right.

Someone else makes an assertion not only without proof, but without evidence. Until he finds something to back it up, I dismiss it.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.

No, I don't believe in the existence of a higher being because there is no evidence for it and because it massively contradicts what we already know.

I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.

You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.

I know it's a commonly-used expression, but I don't like it. "Nigger" is also a commonly used expression, but some people don't like it.

And I didn't label either of your posts wrong based on one thing. I respond to every relevant point. Your assertion is absolutely baseless and absolutely wrong.

He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.

I was hasty in saying "all", but it doesn't matter. Your argument would still have been nonsense even if only limited to angry atheists. I actually responded to you when you first made this complaint. You seem to have ignored what I said and concentrated on one miswording, as if it negated everything else I said.

What was it that you were saying about calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of someone's post? And what did you say about hypocrisy?

While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and  makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.

tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.

If I'd said this, the mods would have been all over me for making personal attacks.

Incidentally, this quote proves my point about the malign influence of religion. Just look how upset people get when you insult their imaginary friend.

1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).

Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").

If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate. If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?

And therefore I don't advocate the killing of spiders. In fact, I've always liked them.

But religion is not analogous.

You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.

Oh yes, I forgot, you're not a sceptic about everything. You apply higher epistemic standard to some questions than to others. Try being more consistent with your scepticism in future.

If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right.  But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.

And would we have evolved as well?

The eye is something that has evolved separately in many different creatures. It's a remarkably useful adaptation and it therefore does not follow that we'd do just as well without it. There appears to be something uniquely useful about the eye for creatures in the animal kingdom.

No, supply and demand.  If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher.  Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.

It would have taken a lot longer for them to reach the same level. Without guns, weaponry would always have been one step behind what it currently is.

You can make wild guesses appear educated.  Lawyers do it all the time.

How do I do so? At the moment, it just looks like you're complaining because you can't refute me.

So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden.  And you say that I insult you.

I don't remember comparing you to Osama bin Laden, but you're reminding me of him now.

The rapist bit was a joke about what might happen if the logic you used when debating with me were used during your everyday life.

You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.

As a great man once said, one should try not to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.

As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas.  I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."

I don't either. I say "because he used all of these words in this combination, he's wrong".

I can't refute your ideas for the simple reason that they're so vague that they can't be engaged with. Fortunately, another great man said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.

But you said that you already know why I think the way I do? Are you admitting that you were wrong?

Anyway, I shouldn't bother you any more. If you feel that you need to have a few months of therapy, I shouldn't get in your way. Give my regards to your therapist.

 

[DLPB_]

I agree that a world without religion would be a better place, simply because I see how the middle east and most of africa is wrecked by it (and how 1 particular religion is crippling Britain and incompatible with sane just laws)..  In africa even catholic dogma is causing severe death by instructing them not to wear condoms or have any birth control.  But Islamic countries fare far worse since they are blowing each other up, mutiliating little girls, brainwashing people, and generally have awful degraded culture because it is based on that religion.

I think logically there can be no doubt that a world without religion would be a fairer and nicer place.  A world without any creative force or purpose however, might not, since a lot of people would lose hope and have no care for their actions.  But on religion, the evidence as it is suggests it has caused or contributed or prolonged far too much death and destruction through the ages and continues to.

Will all war and all trouble stop without religion?  Of course not.  It is our nature.  The reason religion exists in such a controlling and bigoted way is because Human's made it up.  Religion is flawed because we are. But the world without religion would be a far better place.  You can count 3000 people alive in the 1 attack on sep 11th ALONE.

The problem with religion is that it can seem to REWARD people with AFTERLIFE.  So people do not take their LIFE seriously.  They think "Well my book tells me if I do right I go heaven" and "right" depends on interpretation sometimes.  In Islam's case, Muslims are told to conquer the earth and drive out the non believers/christians/jews.  Jihad is a means to heaven.

So, religion is the worst thing in these circumstances because it can reward and give people something no other ideology can:  Eternal life.


therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait

It was.  But when you reach a certain stage, things like this become a burden on society.  jealousy is a survival trait but it doesn't help us...  in many ways it dooms us.  Same way many negative emotions do.

 

[m35]

We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

You are trying to imagine a world with humans having a fundamental difference in traits. Why try guessing based on various examples in human history (which are already tainted by their religious traits) when we can simply examine similar creatures that we *know* exist? And trying to compare liking Justin Bieber to a fundamental difference in evolutionary paths is laughable.

Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").

What makes you think superstitious belief is no longer a good survival trait? When do you think it became obsolete? Just saying it might be obsolete is a pretty weak argument against the reality of millions of years of humanoids dying because they failed to have the trait.

Come on Kudistos, you can do better than that.

 

[xLostWingx]

I've stated exactly what would happen.  You ignored it or called it vague.  The shifting of priorities and tens of thousands of years of cultural evoltion and genetic evolution would undoubtedly produce a different human than we have today.  You keep saying "These bad things wouldn't happen without religion" you may be right, but that really has nothing to do with my point.  Taking the same epistemic stance towards every question sounds pretty dumb to me, but I understand that you see the world in superficial terms, so it makes sense why you think that.

Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying.  You speak about topic as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all.  I mention it, and all I hear is, "Examples! Where are the examples!" You know exactly where the examples are, you pretend like I don't.  By your rules, every post would include every post made before it, but it doesn't matter anyway because you have your "Idiot's Guide to Debate" beside you which has a nice list of ways you can make yourself feel right about anything without actually making any truely relevent points. 

You use a lot of phrases that include, "It looks like" and "It seems to me" when discussing someone's post.  They usually end, "...you can't beat me" "...you lack evidence" "...that thinking makes you an idiot."   

Quotes from historical intellectuals, as if I couldn't do the same and make superficial points by your side.  It's as if you have a point system and everytime you insert a quote or call for examples, you earn 5 points and shout "Yahtzee!!!!"

And just to clarify since you can't seem to remember anything without EXAMPLES!?!?@# in your face, I posted moral views -> You posted a pic of Osama in response.  You said, "That type of thinking" as in, my type of thinking, could get me a rape charge.  aka, "You think like a rapist." And the entire forums are littered with your implications that I am stupid.  I have to agree with what Covarr said at this point.  I don't think there is any real point to dicussing anything with you in the future.  I just wish I hadn't believed that you were some type of sensible human being for so long.

 

[drfeelgud88]

Everytime I come on any forum, FB or anything related with online chatting and see anything titled "Religion" or anything of that sort, I start to laugh. Why? Because we can all pretty much expect what is going to happen -- some views exchanged, others giving their views and then everything goes down the drain.

I dunno why bother posting these type of threads if it will bring major flaming, humiliation and insult someone's morals. Oh well, we all can't think alike so maybe it is needed so that we can see what the other eye sees.

 

[Covarr]

I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.

1. The vast majority of so-called cases of this are absolutely false. A few very true instances of this happened a few years aback, and all of a sudden a bunch of people decide to make false claims of this happening to them, for the sake of harming priests' reputations or attempting to make a quick buck with a fraudulent lawsuit.

2. What's more, even if this were the case, THIS IS NOT CAUSED BY RELIGION. Here you've committed another fallacy, confusing correlation with causation. The few who are, in fact, guilty did not become rapists as a result of a religion, and any supposed cover-up was not the result of religion. It's no different from a large company covering up for a valuable employee, something which happens all the time.

The fact is, you HAVEN'T a lick of evidence, even if you say you do. Every example you've come up with is flimsy at best. You say there would be a lower murder rate, but you haven't any statistics or evidence to back it up. The best you've come up with is that people murder in the name of religion, and have ignored the fact that this is not caused by religion but blamed on it; an insane person can twist ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to their warped viewpoint, and religion just happens to be an easy target for that.

Saying "I have evidence" over and over again doesn't make it true, and saying "that doesn't count" to evidence contrary to your beliefs doesn't make it false or irrelevant.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

1. The vast majority of so-called cases of this are absolutely false. A few very true instances of this happened a few years aback, and all of a sudden a bunch of people decide to make false claims of this happening to them, for the sake of harming priests' reputations or attempting to make a quick buck with a fraudulent lawsuit.

Is that what you think?

Maybe thousands of people were abused but were afraid to come forward because they thought they wouldn't be believed. This behaviour is very common amongst abuse victims.

And maybe a couple of landmark cases gave these victims the confidence to come forward and say that they were abused too.

2. What's more, even if this were the case, THIS IS NOT CAUSED BY RELIGION.

Sure, a religion that demonises sexuality and tells young children that their natural urges are evil isn't going to cause any problems in later life at all.

And people working in a profession where they're forced to be celibate in order to keep their job certainly aren't going to end up being more sexually fucked up still.

And the position of moral and religious authority that priests have over choirboys certainly doesn't make it easier for them to abuse a child. No, not at all. Religion has nothing to do with this.

any supposed cover-up was not the result of religion. It's no different from a large company covering up for a valuable employee, something which happens all the time.

That takes away any claim to holiness (LOL!) that the Catholic church had. You're saying that Il Papa behaved like a corrupt PR man for a major corporation, covering up horrific crimes in order to preserve the company's reputation? Gotta keep those donations coming! The papal palace has quite a big electricity bill, or so I've heard.

This is the church that you follow, is it? Governed like a corrupt business?

You say there would be a lower murder rate, but you haven't any statistics or evidence to back it up.

I have, and I have given evidence. All around the world, religious countries have more murders than more secular ones with roughly equal standards of living. And within these countries, prison populations are more religious than populations out of prison. Is this a co-incidence?

And what about the religion motivated genocides still going on? It's a major factor in the Darfurian genocide. It was a major factor in the Bosnian genocide and in the Serbian attacks on Croats (there's an old joke that if a Croat is not a Catholic, he has no way of proving that he's not a Serb, implying the difference between Serbs and Croats is that the former are Orthodox and the latter are Catholic). It's a major factor in Chechnya. And religion is still a cause of violence in Northern Ireland. I'm sure you're going to cling on to the fact that there are ethnic factors in these conflicts and try to twist this fact in an attempt to prove that the religious element doesn't exist, but you should bear in mind that many of these ethnic divisions only exist because of religious divisions.

And of course, it's the only factor in Islamic terrorism around the world. Thousands die every year at the hands of people so devout that they're willing to die for their faith. It's the only factor in the reign of terror of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. That's a Christian terrorist group, if you were wondering. Most people have never heard of it, since the Western media ignores Africa. The continent is full of violence motivated by religious differences.

The best you've come up with is that people murder in the name of religion, and have ignored the fact that this is not caused by religion but blamed on it

I smell a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.

an insane person can twist ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to their warped viewpoint, and religion just happens to be an easy target for that.

And that's a con of religion, isn't it?

Saying "I have evidence" over and over again doesn't make it true, and saying "that doesn't count" to evidence contrary to your beliefs doesn't make it false or irrelevant.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I've stated exactly what would happen.  You ignored it or called it vague.

When you have no evidence, I'm justified in ignoring your point.

When you say "something will takes religion's place" and don't say what, I'm justified in calling your point vague.

Do you see how that works?

The shifting of priorities and tens of thousands of years of cultural evoltion and genetic evolution would undoubtedly produce a different human than we have today.

That's only relevant if we're talking about what would happen if religion had never existed at all. It has no relevance in a conversation about what would happen if religion ceased to exist in the near future.

I understand that you see the world in superficial terms, so it makes sense why you think that.

And I suppose that you're too DEEP for me?

Do you think that you don't see the world in superficial terms?

Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topic as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all

Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topics as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all.

I mention it, and all I hear is, "Examples! Where are the examples!"

You'll keep hearing that until you give some.

You know exactly where the examples are, you pretend like I don't.

No, I don't. You're obviously far smarter than me, so you'll have to enlighten me. My superficial brain can't find these  examples on its own, so I'll need help from a genius like you.

By your rules, every post would include every post made before it

What? That doesn't follow at all! Are you cleverbot?

but it doesn't matter anyway because you have your "Idiot's Guide to Debate" beside you which has a nice list of ways you can make yourself feel right about anything without actually making any truely relevent points. 

Actually, it's called "Debating for Dummies".

You use a lot of phrases that include, "It looks like" and "It seems to me" when discussing someone's post.

And yet you keep accusing me of being certain about everything.

They usually end, "...you can't beat me" "...you lack evidence" "...that thinking makes you an idiot."

I say it like I see it.

Quotes from historical intellectuals

Both are still alive, actually. Mind you, one of them doesn't have much time left.

It's as if you have a point system and everytime you insert a quote or call for examples, you earn 5 points and shout "Yahtzee!!!!"

You're currently on 0 points.

And just to clarify since you can't seem to remember anything without EXAMPLES!?!?@# in your face, I posted moral views -> You posted a pic of Osama in response.

I posted an "Oh you" macro in response. Do you think that the person in an "Oh you" macro is supposed to represent the person one is responding to? That isn't how "Oh you" macros work.

And I could only find two "Oh you" macros in my reaction images folder (I'd better stock up). The other one had Hitler in it. I shudder to think how much whining that you'd have done if I'd posted that one.

You said, "That type of thinking" as in, my type of thinking, could get me a rape charge.

Didn't I tell you that I was being facetious?

And the entire forums are littered with your implications that I am stupid.

And your clear statements that I'm mentally ill. And Covarr's clear statements that I'm an idiot. Those are personal attacks and are against forum rules. You two are lucky not to get moderated.

 

I have to agree with what Covarr said at this point.  I don't think there is any real point to dicussing anything with you in the future.  I just wish I hadn't believed that you were some type of sensible human being for so long.