Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Question for Athiests and church bashers
Options
Comments
-
I'm an atheist myself and I don't think my parents are stupid for being believers.
To be honest I find the people posting in the atheist forum on here are muppets. Not all of them mind you. I mean the ones that bang on about being an atheist more than the religious people go on about God.
Am I harming anyone by being atheist? Nope not at all.
Are the religious people on here harming people by being religious? Fook no.
Yes there was horrible things went on in the church over the years but in fairness it was the minority who where involved.
I would never look down on a person for having a belief and I definitely would not belittle them for it.
Fooking atheists seem to be more into "changing" people's opinions more than any religious order.0 -
It's very hard to see the connection between dance, musical expression and religion.
I am not surprised given there is not one, and you have not shown there is one. I also suffer from an inability to see things that are not there. We share this at least.But to say simply that one thing is one thing and another thing is a by-product that tacked itself on, doesn't always work.
I am not aware of claiming it ALWAYS works. Nor do I need to. I just need it to work in the examples I gave and explained. Nor do I find your "tentative" sequence all that valid. You seem to want to comparmentalise these things into a nice little sequence which fits with your views but what is more likely is that these things all evolved together, in parallel, each feeding the other and causing new aspects to the other. No pretty little sequence if going to get you to where you want to be in this discussion.
Where are you getting all this stuff about "Dance was designed for dialogue between people and gods, not between people." exactly? Were you there? Are you referring to some studies on the subject that you are not citing? Or are you making this stuff up because it sounds good?I wonder if you accept this as a benefit of religion - the pursuit of beautiful music for religious reasons?
No. Because again it is just another thing that would happen anyway and religion has tacked itself on. As a species we naturally express ourselves artistically through literature, art, music and more. The sudden deletion of religion would not have changed that and we would have expressed ourselves with beautiful music anyway. That the churches just happened to be the best paying employers for certain music or works of art is irrelevant. If I was an artist and the best employer was the church I probably would have done religious art too.
One of the natural things our species does is personification. We do it all the time from getting angry at the door stop we stub our toe on, to promising our car a lovely service if only it would start one more time, to wondering what god is angry when the skies are torn by thunder and lightning. This is a GOOD thing. It helps us represent the world in our minds, it helps us develop stories and folklore with explanatory and educational power by representing aspects of the human condition (like love and war) or of the universe (like thunder, the sun, the universe itself) as "people". Some of our most beautiful art, literature and music has come from this tendency to personify the universe and aspects of it.
Religion has nothing to do with making that happen. It just tacks itself on, associates itself with art, makes itself a good employer and fools once again people like yourself into thinking religion gives us things like art, music, dance or social cohesion. So good has it become at doing that, that even when it is spelled out for you you are still fooled by it.
The problem with personification however, another natural part of us that religion uses to further itself like a virus, is that people have a tendency to take the next step and start thinking that the personifications they have in their mind are actually real.... and religion comes about when people start asking witch doctors and other "gurus" things like "What does this entity want, how can we please it, what happens if we do not....."A dismissive attitude, and one that doesn't work.
I am afraid it works just fine because once again I point out that no one, much less you, has shown a single thing in any one of those realms of discourse that has happened that could not have happened just as easily without religion. So suggesting religion does not really benefit these things in any way is not just dismissive, it is accurate.
Just as soon as you show me any good, morally or otherwise, that we can only get using religion that is entirely precluded us without it then we can go further down that route. The lack of ability of anyone to do that however supports my case as much as it needs supporting.
For example you just went on a long two paragraph description of "trust". People trust all the time, and can make gestures showing their dedication all the time. You do not need religion for that. True, some religions require some gesture of dedication to show your commitment to it and so increase the trust of those around you, but that is nothing to do with religion. That is a natural human thing that we need all the time, and religion just needs it too.
So once again... and I have lost count of how many times you have made this error now.... you are just referring to things that are natural to us, have nothing to do with religion, but religion just does them too and then you act like this is therefore some benefit or useful aspect of religion. No dice and no cigar.
In fact when you say "Any secular statement can be a lie. But a statement made in a ritual context is presumed true" you in fact show a HARM of religion not a benefit. We need to be wary in our lives. We need to examine people, their motives and their claims to see if they are true or useful. ANYTHING "can be a lie". The fact that in a religious context you think people assume things to be true by default is in fact therefore a bad thing.
So you are not even showing that religion promotes trust or cohesion, but that it promotes people shutting off their inquiring minds and assuming things to be true that they have no cause to. Dangerous.
So in short you are taking things natural to us, pretending they are a benefit religion gives us, and actually describing them in ways that shows religion actually gives us a harmful version of them. You are making my own case for me more and more with each post.To say that religion doesn't benefit social cohesion is false. This is what I've been proving
No that is what you have been SAYING. Saying is not the same as proving. I am well aware that this is your opinion and you wish to keep saying it, but I have seen nothing yet to substantiate such a poistion.
As for the rest of your post... it is not replying to anything I said but to things Dawkins has said. If you want to reply to me, reply to me. If you want to reply to Dawkins reply to Dawkins. I am not his proxy nor am I here to defend him. Especially when the arguments against him which you listed are ad hominem and appeals to the arugmentum ad populum. Take it up with him. Not me. However if you are interested in further evidence in the area of meme theory I would recommend Sue Blakemore and Dan Dennett books rather than Dawkins. You can take it up with them too.I have to continue studying religion, its origins, its impacts, its universality, and its behaviors and the genetic bases for these.
Yes, I think you do, and I very much recommend you direct your area of study towards the facts I have given you... such as how not all traits have a genetic basis but are by products of other traits which do. Very important stuff and it would clear up much of the errors you make in this thread. I would recommend Dennetts "Breaking the spell" on this one. Dawkins "The extended Phenotype" is also good even if you have no time for Dawkins as the list of references on the back of that book alone, even if you do not read the book itself, will greatly impact your education on this. It will also torpedo your claim that people just accept his theories as fact even though they are baseless. There is a wealth of citation there which I have explored myself which shows your claim to be anything but true.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »once again I point out that no one, much less you, has shown a single thing in any one of those realms of discourse that has happened that could not have happened just as easily without religion.
This is an argument designed for people to bang their heads together, and might be effective in debating a person of faith. If you do require evidence for everything and fail to see things that are not there, you will see that your argument requires a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such a culture does not exist should give you a reason for pause.
Your civilization is steeped in religion and religious behavior. The bottom line is that almost everything that ever happened in our civilization either happened hand in hand with religion or in opposition to it, but not separate from it.
Evidence of the benefits of religion cannot be ignored, and neither can the negative effects of it. To insist that the benefits of religious behavior could have happened without religion might seem logical, but it misses the point - it didn't happen like that. This might be a heated debate between people who believe religion is inherently good and those who believe it's inherently bad, like you, but the rest of us can only offer a shrug of indifference.
You say the example of statements made in a religious context shows a harm of religion, not a benefit. It's both, hence the fascination of religion: "It's considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful."
There is also force at play that eludes scientific knowledge: human choice. People choose, to some extent, the nature of the societies in which they live, and people can adapt genetically to their social environment. Natural selection favors certain behaviors and the genes that underlie them. One example I found surprising, lactose tolerance. The cultural practice of keeping cattle and drinking raw milk led to changes in the human genome and gave Northern Europeans the unusual genetic ability to digest milk in adulthood. All evidence suggests that our ancestors, rightly or wrongly, chose to be religious.
The benefits of religion to societies in the past I have outlined numerous times, but your belief system hinges on the statement that religious behavior "does not help our survival", but it is somehow yet central to every human society that ever survived. This is strengthened by every lost tribe we discover. This is why the four arms are better than two analogy might be more accurately described as "one arm is better than two", given that you want to remove something we evidently always have had. Come to think of it, I don't know why we have an appendix. But I am willing to accept it might have been useful to us in the past.
I'll demonstrate with one more example of how religion promoted social cohesion - Constantine's support of Christianity. He needed its social cohesion and high birthrate. He needed its social cohesion because his empire lacked social services and their close-knit structure and willingness to help each other was noticeable in a society in which cities were in appalling conditions. He also needed its high fertility rate as the population of the Roman empire was failing to reproduce itself. Religion, as you know, is a significant demographic force. One wonders if religion "tacked itself on" to the Roman empire, or did the Roman empire tack on this religion for its benefits?
If anyone is interested in a nuanced view of religion, the poem Church Going by Philip Larkin always made me stop and think.0 -
This is an argument designed for people to bang their heads together, and might be effective in debating a person of faith.
It does not matter who I am talking about the point remains the same. Though I am not sure why you are pointing this out given you seemingly ARE a person of faith, or at least your posting history on here suggests you are given you do everything from pray to think that people can be “saved”.
The fact is that if you have something that provides no use that you can get just as well in the absence of that something, but the use of that something ALSO causes harm, then that something is in negative equity of usefulness. That is: Harmful. It is therefore worth resisting.
GIVEN therefore that religion has given us nothing of use that I can think of, nor that you can name, and what little use you can mention has nothing to do with religion and would have been just as attainable in the absence of religion… I therefore find religion to be superfluous to any requirements. Further given the harmful side effects of religion I therefore find it fits my paragraph above.Evidence of the benefits of religion cannot be ignored
Maybe if you presented some it could not! However you have not. You have merely listed things that religion has nothing to do with really, but has successfully managed to associate itself with in the minds of people like yourself. Any actual benefits of religion however, I have heard nothing of. Much less from yourself.but it is somehow yet central to every human society that ever survived.
Something I have explained to you numerous times but you continue to ignore it. Just because something has been universal in human society does not by default make it a survival trait. Like catching the common cold has also been universal to all societies there has ever been. Catching colds is not a survival trait, it is a by product of things that are.
Merely identifying a universal trait is not enough to harp on about it being a necessary, a useful or a survival trait. You need to do more work, work you want to bypass by ignoring this fact.0 -
As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?
I'm not so arrogant to think that anyone who doesn't share my beliefs is gullible, naive and weak willed0 -
Advertisement
-
I consider myself an atheist but I still respect people's beliefs that conflict with my own. They have a right to believe what they want just as I have the right to be an atheist. I will criticize the church for things like the abuse scandals but I will never attempt to force my beliefs on people who follow the church. I hate when somebody tries to force their beliefs down by throat because I am 'wrong' but in my experience I have come across a lot of atheists who do the same thing.0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Though I am not sure why you are pointing this out given you seemingly ARE a person of faith, or at least your posting history on here suggests you are given you do everything from pray to think that people can be “saved”.
This is an aside as it doesn't affect the argument - Whatever about what I may have believed in the past (of course, after studying the subject of religion so much my personal stance has changed), I don't know if I ever believed people can be "saved"? I have engaged and debated with Christians on Boards many times to further my interest in Theology, but not recently, although I did start a thread criticizing the Vatican a couple of weeks ago. I must have said it if you give it as a quote, but I really am a bit puzzled as I need you to offer me a clue about when I said people can be "saved", especially as you give it as a quotation.0 -
I consider myself an atheist but I still respect people's beliefs that conflict with my own. They have a right to believe what they want just as I have the right to be an atheist. I will criticize the church for things like the abuse scandals but I will never attempt to force my beliefs on people who follow the church. I hate when somebody tries to force their beliefs down by throat because I am 'wrong' but in my experience I have come across a lot of atheists who do the same thing.
What sort of beliefs do you have which conflict with religion?0 -
I consider myself an atheist but I still respect people's beliefs that conflict with my own. They have a right to believe what they want just as I have the right to be an atheist. I will criticize the church for things like the abuse scandals but I will never attempt to force my beliefs on people who follow the church. I hate when somebody tries to force their beliefs down by throat because I am 'wrong' but in my experience I have come across a lot of atheists who do the same thing.
Quite often we do so because we are forced. Most atheists, with few exceptions, have little issue with "personal faith". I myself have none at all and when I spot people with it I do not rush over and try and divest them of their views.
For most the problem lies when people bring their unsubstantiated ideas into our halls of power, education and science and start to try and dictate policy based on them.
If someone walked in with a page full of entirely made up and unbacked statistics and started trying to dictate policies based on those statistics... would you not stand up and resist the use of that page until such time as the holder can substantiated the figures written on it?
All most atheists and secularists want is for religion and god(s) to be treated the same way as that page of statistics. As long as theists continue to be, not just a little but entirely unable to substantiate their claims that such an entity exists... then I will continue to resist the use of that idea in our public halls of power, politics, education and science.... in the same way... and for the same reasons.... as you would resist the use of a piece of paper with clearly made up statistics written all over it.
Nor has anyone, even, even once, adumbrated a single reason why I should NOT act in that way.0 -
Whatever about what I may have believed in the past I don't know if I ever believed people can be "saved"?
Sorry for the delay in replying. The first time I went through your posting history I found the process exceedingly boring and so I did not relish having to do it a second time to back up one part of the results. My own fault as I likely should have link quoted each part to the source that made me say it. Live and learn.
However I have gritted my teeth and repeated it and I believe I must have been referring to this thread below where:
a user asked you:Just to be clear, your position is that those who treat others well will be saved regardless of their religion (or lack of)? Is that correct?
To which you replied:Yes, i hesitated for a while here, but yeah. Basically.
And subsequently received a "Thanks" from Sam for your honesty in replying. Maybe you have a different definition of "saved" in a religion context and in the context of your previous post on that thread about what people will be "judged" on and in the context of saying "speaking as a catholic...". But I doubt it.
As you said however it is an aside and a tangent. I mentioned such attributes only to point out that in the discussion so far I have been considering you a "believer" and your post history seems to support that assumption.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The first time I went through your posting history I found the process exceedingly boring
One of the recurring themes of this debate is that people are quite suspicious of atheists, and find them quite distasteful in some of their tactics, a sentiment I might agree with. In order to present your argument, I would advise you to be clear on what your argument is. If you want to present the motion of "people shouldn't bring their unsubstantiated ideas into our halls of power, education and science and start to try and dictate policy based on them" I won't disagree with you. I am strongly in favor of setting limits to the extent to which religion can be involved in public life, but don't see how this leads one to atheism. Since this has nothing to do with our discussion, I'll let you discuss it with the other poster.
I should add also that the undertones of your previous post have not gone unnoticed. One other recurring theme here is annoyance with atheists claiming intellectual superiority, and this seems to be an example of an atheist spending time trawling unnecessarily through two years of posts on a website to find a quote that will allow him to point at someone and say "look at him! He thinks people can be saved!" Although my past is of no concern to this debate, I will address the issue you have so subtly tried to raise.
It actually reminds me of another benefit of religion: identity. I left Ireland a number of years ago, before the economic collapse and subsequently found myself experiencing a sense of dislocation, physical and cultural, given that I now live in Asia. Statistics have already been discussed in this thread showing the relative decline of Christianity in some countries, obviously related to an influx of immigrants who cling to their religion as a source of identity. I know no other Irish person where I live, nor do I know anyone who is catholic. Therefore, despite not following the faith (highlighted by my blatant misunderstanding of Catholic theology in the quote you gave) I never felt obliged to throw off the catholic label, although given the revelations of recent times, one might have different views now. I tried to tap into the faith I had in upbringing, but found I had moved on, and instead had an appetite to understand what the faith was. I was in Ireland for a month last year, and tried again to tap into the faith, but it wasn't there. I'm also reminded of someone I would consider a serious intellect, Martin Scorcese, who said he doubts the existence of God, but does not doubt that he is a Catholic. It's his identity. On another note, I know of a lot of non-religious Jews who maintain a strong affinity for their religion, because it maintained their identity as a people.
Another sad aspect of atheism in Ireland was seen at the time of recent census. I was dismayed by some militant atheists pushing arguments such as "if you do not attend mass, you must tick No Religion!" Atheism, it seems, plays a numbers game. I respect the protest vote against the Vatican, but it's important for some people to know when to refrain from intellectual bullying. Atheism is always increasing at times of social dissatisfaction with Churches. It usually just a reaction against a corrupt church without a positive philosophy in its own right. My original point in this thread was to remind people that religion is not dead yet, and trends in Ireland do not represent trends globally. Some might do well to refrain from announcing the death of God, perhaps even within their generation, especially as Churches have been known to reform themselves, and God has a reputation for resurrection.
Other atheists speak of the elimination of religion, especially with the tired and unfounded analogy of religion as a virus - which I will come back to, but never say how this elimination will take place. The thing is, however irritating it may be for you, that a lot of people like religion, and won't abandon it. As I said before, it seems our ancient ancestors might have chosen to be religious. The common belief that "they wouldn't be religious if I could argue with them and convince them they're stupid" is usually unfounded. In criticising religion it's important to be aware of history's claims about religion - many of which I have outlined already - while being aware that religion's claims about history are usually false. It's important to also be aware of history's claims about atheism, including it's historical intolerance. The eradication of faith usually involves firing squads and gas chambers. Please keep in mind that when religion is blamed for all the ills of the world, history offers many awkward anomalies.
While moving away from my faith, I could not fall into the atheist camp as I see it as being intellectually wanting and self-serving in myths such as the science one. The keep-religion-away-from-our-science attitude serves the myth that atheism is a fact-based science permanently at war with religion. This caricature is clearly untrue now, and history has determined it to be misleading and inaccurate in the past. It's pointless arguing with people who are dogmatic in their assertions, and incredulous that others don't conform to their way of thinking. You have said something to the effect of "I suggest you keep studying", which also rings of a pathological sense of entitlement to sit at the top table of religious discussion, unaware of atheism's moral and intellectual failures. I consider myself an agnostic, and I would remind others of the failures of religion and atheism, and of the limitation of human knowledge and the need for humility. Atheism is not the only true faith, and when religion is declared to be an enemy and inherently bad, the outcome is as inevitable as it is criminal. To those who stand outside the religious debate, both atheist propagandists and religious fanatics are equally tainted.
The religion as a virus of the mind argument is a dangerous one, and one that presupposes that atheism has some sort of moral high ground. But atheism has been exposed to the corrupting influences of power and government just as religion has, so the moral high ground that existed in the nineteenth century just isn't there anymore. It carries more worrying undertones, that it is something that exists to be eradicated. You recommended I look into the writings of the main advocates of this argument, such as Sue Blackmore, a champion of theories put forward by Dawkins, who wrote the introduction for her book. I found an article by Sue Blackmore, written late last year. It's entitled: Why I No Longer Believe Religion Is A Virus Of The Mind.
The article is refreshing to read just to see someone who was at one of the poles of the debate to concede something, and admit they were proved wrong. And it all rested on the point that religion has benefits. Religious people have more children. As I said to you earlier, this is evolution's only yardstick for success.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/16/why-no-longer-believe-religion-virus-mind0 -
It actually reminds me of another benefit of religion: identity.
You have spent the last few posts debating the stance of nozzferrahhtoo and his motives but despite writing many paragraphs I have yet to see any of these benefits of religion that could not have happened without religion.
Your identity one is as weak as your others, as it could be used as a negative as well as a positive. You could have been persecuted for being your religion i.e. killed. Also same arguement about identity could be used by someone with a mohawk or a mark of your tribe in an area without them for example, so religion is not needed here and the benefit is placebo at best.0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »You have spent the last few posts debating the stance of nozzferrahhtoo and his motives but despite writing many paragraphs I have yet to see any of these benefits of religion that could not have happened without religion.
That's not my point. I will stress this again. To see what could or would have happened without, requires a visit to a society that has never been religious. I'll save you time: such a society doesn't exist. Again, this argument is designed for people to bang their heads together. Someone can mention obvious benefits and the other person can always say "prove that couldn't have happened without religion!" Atheism in it's laziest form always says "no burden of proof on me." Nothing intellectual going on here, just denials.FrostyJack wrote: »Your identity one is as weak as your others, as it could be used as a negative as well as a positive. You could have been persecuted for being your religion i.e. killed.
Indeed, and countless millions were. If you want to make a religion stronger and more cohesive, start killing them.FrostyJack wrote: »Also same arguement about identity could be used by someone with a mohawk or a mark of your tribe in an area without them for example, so religion is not needed here and the benefit is placebo at best.
Yes, signaling. Religion does that. That I could have just had a mohawk is not my point. I just gave a personal experience as an example. Religion as identity is well studied. It certainly preserved the Jews as a people during the diaspora since the destruction of the temple.0 -
Yes, I do think they were dumb.0
-
In order to present your argument, I would advise you to be clear on what your argument is.
I am not entirely sure how to make it any clearer to you than I have been already but I will endeavor to simplify it further where I can in order to assist you. However I am not sure why you use the word "argument" in the singular as I am aware of no reason why I should only have one argument. I have several, and the resistance of the use of religion in our halls of power, education and science is only one of them.
It is safe to say it is my main one however.I am strongly in favor of setting limits to the extent to which religion can be involved in public life, but don't see how this leads one to atheism.
Nor do I. Nor have I claimed it does. Nor have I seen anyone claim it does to my recollection. So I am not sure why you bring it up with me? Alas this, and much more of your post, display a willingness to argue against things I have not said, and positions I have not espoused in order to play your own record.I should add also that the undertones of your previous post have not gone unnoticed.
You are welcome to imagine what tones you want but I intended none so any you assign to the post are your own invention and not mine. You asked me to back up a statement I had made, which I did. I find it somewhat distasteful that after asking me to do so... and then me taking the time to do so.... you use my doing so as some material for a baseless ad hominem attack. You do not get to ask someone to do something and then act like them then doing it says something bad about their character. As for my initial trawl through your posting history... I find it wise to know as best as one can who one is talking to. Your opportunistic attempt to get an ad hominem in is in no way going to change my procedures in this regard and I do not apologise for them nor feel embarrassed by them. I am one who does my research. I will continue to be so.Although my past is of no concern to this debate, I will address the issue you have so subtly tried to raise.
I did not raise any issue. You made a comment about how my arguments "might work on a believer". I merely pointed out that until now I had considered YOU a believer and I told you why, based on your posting history. That was all I wanted to point out so any "issue" you think I have tried to raise aside from that exists only in your head.It actually reminds me of another benefit of religion: identity.
That is not by definition a good thing in every case and for example I see nothing to be proud of by identifying oneself with catholicism... especially if one is doing so out lf lazyness and does not even share the faith the label is based on. Such "identity" is a lie, to oneself and to others.
Also again it is another example of something that people take to the religion, not that religion gives them so you are making the same error again that I have pointed out you made again and again in the thread. Finally it is also another example of something one can have in the absence of religion and therefore to which Religion is entirely superfluous to requirements."if you do not attend mass, you must tick No Religion!"
Actually the arguments of Atheist Ireland on this were more than that. This is a strawman over simplification. The message Atheist Ireland wanted to get across was that a true representation of the figures are what we want (because EVERYONE plays the numbers game, especially in a democracy, despite your attempt to lay the blame for playing numbers at the feet of atheists).
Their point was that the box you tick should be about what you actually believe. The figures should reflect belief and not tradition. If you have no belief in a god and you do not go to mass then calling yourself "catholic" is dishonest.My original point in this thread was to remind people that religion is not dead yet
If that was your point then you would have found little disagreement from me. I neither thought it was dead nor expect it to be within a large number of generations. Once again you appear to be beefing up your posts by attacking positions that no one has actually espoused in the conversation. This really is the common theme over most of your last post. If I had deleted everything that was replying to things I never espoused in this conversation there would be no substance left to your post at all.
Your point however was much more than that, so I am not sure why you are now choosing to repaint your own position here.
Your points so far have been things like claiming Religion can be a good thing, and that we "could not" have evolved without it. Your lack of substantiation for either of these points is likely the reason you are choosing to redefine your position now and back off from your own position. You keep claiming these things but have not provided a single valid piece of substantiation for either of them.... choosing instead to go on a monologue of ad hominem and attacks on the intellectual position of atheism as you view it.Other atheists speak of the elimination of religion, especially with the tired and unfounded analogy of religion as a virus - which I will come back to, but never say how this elimination will take place.
Thankfully just because you have not heard them saying how, or have ignored them saying how, this does not magically mean they never have. In fact they very much have and Atheist Ireland is openly working on the secularisation of Ireland and it's aims for how to do this are clear. Those who treat religion as a virus have very much proposed programs of inoculation such as the creation of a "world religions" course in schools that teach the history of religion and the commonalities and differences between them. The teaching of critical thinking in schools has also been proposed and much more.
So simply saying that no one has suggested how to proceed against religion does not magically mean it is true. They very much have been talking about how to do this. You have just got your head in the sand on the issue.The thing is, however irritating it may be for you, that a lot of people like religion, and won't abandon it.
Nor have I once indicated I wish them to. In fact despite you ignoring what I write I have on this very thread said that most atheists and secularists, myself included, have no wish to remove personal faith, have no problem with personal faith and only come to arms when that faith is used in ways that are inappropriate. So your comments about firing squads and gas chambers are not only inappropriate, and rather desperate, but they do not even apply.
It appears at this stage you have a record to play, and you are willing to ignore, or redefine, as much of what I have said (and others) as necessary in order to allow it to be played.
Summary: So in summary I find you are now distancing yourself from your own arguments that religion is a good thing and was somehow necessary for our evolution. Points which remain entirely unsubstantiated. To cover your retreat from these points you are creating strawmen and arguing points that no one every made such as religion not being dead, Atheist Irelands position on the census, firing squads and wishing people to abandon personal faith. You are retreating from both your own arguments and the points I have made against your arguments.0 -
Hold on to your moral indignation for a moment. When I say previous post, I mean the post before the explanation of the trawl. I thought I made that clear with your quote "the first time I went through your posting history I found it boring" etc. You highlighted the word saved also, put it in quotations and attributed it to me as a way of sidetracking the discussion and drawing attention to personal beliefs I may have had, a way of playing the man, not the ball. Again, you use quotations for "could not have evolved". This was clarified a lot time ago, and you know that. I have not mentioned your character, but your approach here is a dishonest one. You say that no one in this thread espoused the idea that religion was going away. Also, not true.
My original point in this thread was indeed that religion is a force that is not to be expected to go away anytime soon. This is not a retreat from any argument. I feel that you are replying not to me, but to people who already agree with you, summarising incorrectly my argument, and misrepresenting me. Again, I have not distanced myself from the point that religion is a good thing, although I don't think I said anything so absolute. My argument is that you are wrong in asserting it's bad and a virus. My point is simple, religion is instinctive, beneficial, and not going to be eradicated. For me to say it's inherently good would lead me to a fundamentalist position. No thanks.
My point that religion has benefits is mainly to display the inaccuracies of your virus position. My last post finished with Sue Blackmore's article. I expected you to perhaps give some thoughts on that, but that's up to you. I won't accuse you of retreating on the argument. The benefits of primitive religion helped us to survive. You agree that it's universal. As noted, the universal aspects of human behaviour must have a Darwinian explanation. I believe religion is subject to the explanations of natural science. It must have benefits. The virus argument holds no weight, as shown already. Even Sue Blackmore has abandoned it, in light of a major benefit (one that you have ignored in this thread each time it's been mentioned), which is that religious people have more children. Incidentally, why would I retreat from my position without it being refuted, just denied? My position is that it's universal, beneficial, and an embedded part of our culture, and that leads to it's genetic basis.
You have agreed that religion has costs, at times enormous costs to those who practice it. In economic terms, something with costs must have benefits that outweigh those costs. It can't be all costs, no benefits. Benefits of religion are not just communal, such as cohesiveness of the in-group and defence against the out-group, but personal, pyschological and emotional. This of course does not make it true. Just beneficial, as empirical research shows. For the individual, religion offers mental health benefits, makes them less likely to abuse drugs, engage in crime, divorce, etc. It is the basis of communities and increases social cohesiveness. It offers the individual consolation, however imagined it may be, and offers social connections. All that is to say nothing of charity, in many cases a religious obligation. Religiously motivated charity is still charity. To return to the economic analogy, we can take America as an example, one of the most religious countries. A free market in religion. With customers, market segmentation and product differentiation. The product sells because people buy it and want it for its benefits. Religion indeed offers innumerable benefits. You can say these are placebos, I believe most of them are, but placebos are a real benefit. On identity, yes it can be a bad thing. But group affiliation is a human need that religion provides, just as nationality and race does, and indeed it often provides stronger binds. You can also say that religion is superfluous and we could still have all these benefits from other things. But there is no other single institution that can offer all of these. This is another part of your argument that is not clear. It's the most powerful and pervasive cultural force on earth but yet has it no benefits whatsoever, or benefits that we would have gotten anyway, therefore religion is entirely superfluous? If it's the latter, it's not something that can be proven, and requires belief in an ideology. What would we replace it with? There is no other institution that can replace it. Not government. Not science (which of course is values-neutral and can be corrupted the same way religion has been). If nothing, accept the inevitable. We would invent something again. Something that looks a lot like religion.
Religion is adaptive behavior. It is not static. It changes, and is generally self correcting. I consider religion's roles in the downfall of the Soviet Union, in Latin America with liberation theology, and in other places like Burma to be a benefit of religion. I am glad of religions emphasis on human rights. Religion can often be absolutist, exclusionary and misguided, but most religions that I can think of are founded on decent values. The militant atheist view is usually that without religion the world would be the same but without wars, ignorance and oppression, but that is an ideological world view. I did not argue that we would not have gotten here at all, please be clear on that, but I view religion not as a total impediment, but as something that has also been a facilitator. Keep in mind that much of science began as religious endeavour. The "no benefits" argument is classic head-in-the-sand stuff. Too often if someone religious does something bad, religion is at fault, but if a religious person does something good, well then they had religious reasons so it doesn't count.
You said I didn't substantiate my view that religion can be a good thing. Sorry, but to me, it's common sense.
I support separation of church and state like most people I know. I don't know Atheist Ireland, but I suspect they view themselves as the purveyors of church and state separation, so to reject them would be seen as supporting church and state integration. However, I am suspicious of militant atheism. You probably reject the term, because I think you already claimed something like you don't like the term atheist. I don't like any fundamentalism, any group that are self righteous, perceive the enemy as inherently bad, intolerant of challenges to their beliefs, ridicule the enemy and who suppress critical thinking. Militant atheists are very close to all these things, and it turns me off, so forgive me for being suspicious.0 -
....You highlighted the word saved....
Again my only mention of the „saved“ post, along with the other things like your penchant for praying and the like, was to highlight the reasons why I have been considering you a „believer“ and why I still do. Any other “tones” or “motivations” you want to apply to it above and beyond that are both false and irrelevant.
I made a post here which you have now effectively managed to entirely run away from and avoid in wonderful Jakkass/Philologos fasion by simply saying "might be effective in debating a person of faith" and then going off on a tangent when I explained exactly why I thought you were such a person. That you therefore have the gall to accuse ME of "sidetracking" is nothing short of comical.Again, you use quotations for "could not have evolved". This was clarified a lot time ago, and you know that.
No I do not "know" any such thing. I entered the discourse with you to show that that statement by you was entirely unsubstantiated. Give you have not retracted it, or substantiated it, I certainly do not "know" any such thing has been clarified.
YOUR position on this thread has been that Religion is somehow good/useful/beneficial and that we "could not" have evolved without it. MY position on this thread is to show how that position is entirely unsubstantiated and your attempts to substantiate it have been erroneous and false. I do not apologise for taking that position, I will continue to take that position, and as long as you insist on espousing your unsubstantiated position I will not go away.
Certainly not just because in your last post you decided to pretend the position you have been espousing for some number of posts now is entirely different from the one you have actually being espousing for several posts now. You have been on here claiming religion is somehow good/useful and we "could not" have evolved without it. So to then suddenly claim that your point was just that "religion is not dead yet" really is a backpedal and turn around.My argument is that you are wrong in asserting it's bad and a virus.
As I said I class something as "bad" for many possible reasons. The reason religion fits is the one where I say if X provides either NO good things OR no good things that are not equally achievable without X.... AND X also causes one or more bad things, then I classify X as "bad".
GIVEN religion has not provided any good things that could not be achieved without it AND GIVEN that most of the "good" things it is claimed to have provided it actually did not.... but just successfully associated itself with.... I find religion fits the first half of my reason.
Then I need only one thing to fit the second half of my definition. Trust me, religion affords me a lot more than 1 and I have gone into some of them at length in the thread already.
So what part of my definition of religion as "bad" you have issue with is still unclear and unsubstantiated in any way.My point is simple, religion is instinctive, beneficial, and not going to be eradicated.
It is certainly simple, I agree with that. It is also clear. I am very much aware of what your position IS. What your point is NOT however... is substantiated or in some parts correct. You make three claims in the above sentence.
1) It is instinctive. You have not substantiated this and I have explained at length exactly why it is natural to us. It is not instinctive in and of itself, but infact uses aspects of us (such as hyper agency detection) in order to perpetuate itself. The best analogy for this is the one I already used. Religion is no more instinct to us than flying into fire is instinct to a moth. OTHER things are instinct to us / the moth which gives the impression that religion / flying into fire is instinct.
2) It is beneficial. You have not substantiated this and have instead listed "good" things that are not caused by religion in any way, but religion has merely managed to associate itself with.
3) It is not going to be eradicated. You have not substantiated this and you do not know this. Nor do I. Neither of us can see the future. You can express your opinion today all you want. You can express facts we have now all you like. You are not entitled to, nor in a position to, tell the future however. So put your crystal ball away and stick to the facts we have. The facts we have actually show atheism to be one of the fastest growing minorities for example. The facts we have show countries like Germany have for the first time got more people leaving certain faiths as joining then. The facts we have lead to people writing articles like this one highlighting the countries in which Religion is likely to first become extinct. That the process is a SLOW one and will likely not happen in the lifetime of even my great-g-g-g-grandkids I happily concede. That the trend is in that direction however I also recognise.the universal aspects of human behaviour must have a Darwinian explanation. I believe religion is subject to the explanations of natural science.
You are going in circles now. You have made the exact same point as above already and I agreed 100% with it. I fully agree it likely has Darwinian explanations. The issue is that I am disagreeing with you on WHICH darwinian explanation applies and that diagreement is based on you insisting on making.....It must have benefits.
..... this basic error over and over again despite being corrected on it many times. Just because a trait is common or even universal is not enough to declare it "must" have benefits. It just simply is not. You can keep declaring it all you like, but doing so will not magically make it correct. As soon as you denude yourself of this false notion that all common or universal traits "must have benefits" you will find that most of the rest of your errors correct themselves too. Which is why I am focusing so heavily, and will continue to do so, on this glaring error.
It is simply a misconception from lay men with little background in Evolutionary Science that every successful trait must bestow in and of itself benefits on the host.
As for religious people having "more children" there is two massive errors there which you and Sue are missing and I actually entered into some email discourse with her on the subject since the article in question.
Firstly you can not declare that "more children" is defacto a good thing. There are many paths to Darwinian Success in evolution and sheer numbers of off spring is not the only one. Having one off spring can be just as, and sometimes more, beneficial in a Darwinian sense than having 1000.
Secondly the declaration that religious people have more off spring is a correlation not a causation.It can't be all costs, no benefits.
Again I agree 100% on this, you have said it before and I have agreed with it before. Again the issue is that I do not agree as to WHERE the benefits go. You are still making the error of thinking that "If it costs the host a lot, it must benefit the host a lot". The reason I use the virus analogy is to show this is not always the case. It COSTS us very much indeed to host, reproduce and distribute viruses for example. So "It cant be all costs, no benefits" is true. The issue is that the "benefits" are to the virus not to US.
So in essence you are 100% correct in talking about costs and benefits. You are 100% incorrect in assuming the costs and the benefits "must" be to the same entity. Again this is a simple error but again if you divest yourself of it much of your other errors will correct themselves by domino effect too.
So really it comes down to 2 very simply, easily corrected errors in Evolutionary Thinking and in correcting them I would roughly estimate that around 70 to 80% of the other errors you are making in this thread would fall away by proxy.0 -
Firstly, you're misrepresenting me by insisting on using the quote "could not". This was clarified straight away, in post 347. "As a quick point I would like to say you're right here on the wording. What I wanted to say is that we could not, and would not, have evolved the way we did, without religion it would have been very different, for better or for worse is another question, which we'll never know." I did not avoid any argument you made. Your personification argument is lovely and simple, I really like it. I really suggest using it in an argument on the existence of God. Curiously, it was that post that recommended Sue Blackmore. I had gotten the impression that post was attempting to stifle the debate by refusing to discuss your theories, because they were Dawkins', and I have to take it up with him, apparently. There's a bit of an elephant in the room now with the reproductive thing, so it's not surprising you want to turn the clock back, so I'll try to cover both.
In terms of evolution, survival without reproduction is a dead end.
In the attempt to get our genes into the next generation, a one child policy wouldn't get us far, as its success is usually measured in the amount of births avoided. We play the same reproductive game as animals, but with a difference. We can strategise. Religion is the best descendent-leaving strategy of all.
Having children is full of risks - it is often deadly to mother and child, the births are painful, children are costly etc. Religion solved a motivational problem by advocating reproductive motivation and marriage. Empirical evidence shows clearly that religious people have higher motivations for marriage and children and family. The reproductive success of religion is obvious. The higher birthrates are empirically verified globally. Religion was the biological solution to the motivational problem. There are hundreds of commandments in the Hebrew Bible. What was the first?
Religions are adaptive and they evolve. Religious beliefs evolved in order to combine reproductive motivation with adaptive cooperation strategies. Just as they pass down wisdom by imputing it to the gods, they incorporate traditions with reproductive benefits due to competition in demography. Individual religious behaviour is not enough, it has to be communal for it to work. Religion created these communities through communal rituals and deflected exploiters and built trust. Religion is an identifier and a signalling method that works unlike any other. I have already discussed the costs of religion, which signals the trustworthiness to other religious people. This is favored by kin selection and sexual selection. One often wonders why do women dominate memberships of all the major monotheistic religions. According to studies, their preference for religious communities is tied to the risk of having children and needing a partner who will contribute to the child to ensure survival. Religion secured cooperation and prevented betrayal. Keep in mind that a statement made in a religious context could be considered true, hence the power of the marital vows, which in almost all cultures are made in a religious context. A religious marriage has supernatural witness to prevent betrayal and defecting partners. Even today, religious people are less likely to divorce or be single parent families.
Importantly, all these findings are through proper studies and empirical research. In other words, they have substance, and they show how religion was useful. The correlation between religiosity and reproduction is extremely, extremely positive. Secular societies are basically falling below the replacement rate. All the evidence points to the fact that religion is adaptive, not viral. Since you like to use phrases like "unsubstantiated" and "much less from yourself", I'm led to another point. Your argument that religion is bad / a virus is, ironically, one of the most unsubstantiated claims you could possibly make. You presented arguments like the meme one, which is linked to the virus one, and these come from Dawkins. When I disregarded it, you said "take it up with Dawkins", which brings to mind a creationist saying "it's in The Book, take it up with God". You are peddling this myth, similar to a religious person peddling a myth of six day creation or some other religious myth. You also mentioned Dennett's "Breaking The Spell", did he not believe religion served an evolutionary purpose, just as I do?
Memes lack a definition, can't be observed or proven. Ironically, you said you fail to see things that are not there. You can't see memes, and people have tried to depict what a meme might look like, but that's no different to someone drawing a picture of God and inferring that it adds weight to the argument that God exists. The point is, you claim to be fighting against unsubstantiated claims, but your argument seems to be based on memes. The Journal Of Memetics was closed down because no empirical studies could be published. Memetics has had its day, and is no longer taken seriously in science. It led to the virus theory, which is central to your argument. This is a failed metaphor, and was recognised as such by Sue Blackmore, who was a champion of the theory. All the data discredits the virus theory. Her words: "This is how science (unlike religion) works: in the end it's the data that counts. Being shown you are wrong is horrid." It is admirable that she accepted scholarly and empirical evidence, it took courage and integrity, and can move on now to new lines of inquiry. It is yet, however, the widespread theory of religion on the internet. Who is spreading this? And why?
Religion is a virus of the mind - it's a wonderful slogan, but that's all it is. A slogan being used by atheist propangandists. One can offer benefit after benefit of religion, and no benefit more obvious than higher reproduction. You cannot accept any benefit, because your bias depends on it. When it's an obvious benefit, the "this could have happened in an alternate universe without religion" card is played. The virus theory is undermined further by empirical research into health and religiosity that shows religion can be a beneficial thing for individuals and society and yet militant atheists gloss over this with alarming ease. Why was the virus theory so attractive? It's important to you that the virus myth persists, because your belief hinges on it. If it's a virus, it's harmful. It's bad. It "tacks itself on". It has a life of its own. It's bad. It infects. It's invasive. It's alive. So we have to kill it.
Religion is bad - this is a moral judgment. An opinion. Common sense tells you it can be good too. Science will not prove religion is bad because science is values neutral. Religious people do bad things, sure. But. How many? How often? Under what circumstances? And what of anti-religious people? Confront this and you will see a bad side of human nature. Things are just a bit more complex than you let on. The virus theory increases the rhetoric, sells books, is eye catching but without substance, and is merely a myth peddled as fact in popular internet culture. The internet is a great resource, but is a dangerous breeding ground for some ideas with little reasoning. Dawkins, who I'm mentioning because he is clearly the man you take your cues from, refers to "the root of all evil" and has a slogan on his website "a clear thinking oasis", an irony lost on many. Sue Blackmore was widely attacked by militant atheists for conceding her argument. I'm reminded of the curious case of Julian Baggini, critical of Dawkins, widely attacked on the internet, and I believe it led to Dawkins distancing himself from his own fans on his website, and removing his forum. My point is shared by Baggini: you can't say religion is evil and also claim to be an intellectual person of reason, yet intolerant of other views. Remove the bias from your argument, and all the "many errors you are making in this thread will fall away by proxy."
Finally, you say I have not substantiated the fact that religion is not going away. It's simple. You're bringing up all the arguments. They're bringing up all the children.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30476
"As a quick point I would like to say you're right here on the wording. What I wanted to say is that we could not, and would not, have evolved the way we did, without religion it would have been very different, for better or for worse is another question, which we'll never know."
As far as science can tell we haven't noticeably evolved in a very long time, in a lot longer time than we know religion has been around. We had evolved before religion showed up as far as we know. That's the biggest problem with what you've said there as far as I can see.Having children is full of risks - it is often deadly to mother and child, the births are painful, children are costly etc. Religion solved a motivational problem by advocating reproductive motivation and marriage. Empirical evidence shows clearly that religious people have higher motivations for marriage and children and family.
So you're saying we need motivation to reproduce beyond our natural in built desire to reproduce. That is absurd.
With the child birthrate thing, you could argue living in poverty also motivates people to have more kids since birth rates are always way way higher in poorer countries(which also tend to be more susceptable to religion), maybe it's strategically better for the human race to live in squalor?0 -
As far as science can tell we haven't noticeably evolved in a very long time, in a lot longer time than we know religion has been around. We had evolved before religion showed up as far as we know.
Depends on when you believe religious behavior showed up. Some say 50,000 years ago, others much more. It's all based on archaeological findings and presuppositions. History begins with writing, which began 5000 years ago, so religion falls into prehistory. When we moved to settled societies about 15,000 years ago, religion had already been long established feature of human societies. I'm not saying we wouldn't have evolved physically, but that it had an evolutionary purpose. I believe Dan Dennet also believes religion had an evolutionary purpose, but I haven't read his book.So you're saying we need motivation to reproduce beyond our natural in built desire to reproduce. That is absurd.
It's surprising, yes. Of course we have a natural desire to reproduce, but religious people have motivations to reproduce more, whereas secular societies don't and as a result often fall below the replacement rate. In other words, religious societies have higher birthrates, which is evolutionary success. Facts is facts, sadly. Go forth and multiply, as the fella said.With the child birthrate thing, you could argue living in poverty also motivates people to have more kids since birth rates are always way way higher in poorer countries(which also tend to be more susceptable to religion), maybe it's strategically better for he human race to live in squalor?
Not really sure what you mean. I think poverty and squalor does motivate them to have more kids in some ways. But evolutionary biologists do study try to answer this question too. I think it's if you're trying to exist in a harsh, unpredictable environment you are more likely to try to follow a "fast" reproductive strategy in order to leave more progeny. The instinct is to survive. I don't think the poor, war ravaged and starving people of certain countries will have a meeting and agree to die out.
But anyway, the point, according to empirical research, is that yet not a single secular community managed to pass on its genes with the same, intergenerational success as religious ones.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30476
I'm not saying we wouldn't have evolved physically, but that it had an evolutionary purpose.
I acknowledge it is a product of our evolution to a point in that we had to evolve in the first place for it to exist but evolution is physical and would happen regardless of non physical influences.It's surprising, yes. Of course we have a natural desire to reproduce, but religious people have motivations to reproduce more, whereas secular societies don't and as a result often fall below the replacement rate. In other words, religious societies have higher birthrates, which is evolutionary success. Facts is facts, sadly. Go forth and multiply, as the fella said.
You seem to be neglecting that secular societies tend to be developed ones, which have lower birthrates across the board. If the poor communities in africa were secular but in the same situations they are now its quite likely they'd have just as high a birthrate as they do now. Ireland is secular as a society to a large extent but most people here are religious yet we have a low birthrate, indeed most people in nearly all western developed countries would be religious yet the birthrates are low.
Anyhoo..... I'll leave you and nozz alone :pac:0 -
It's not comparing countries against countries, it's comparing religious groupings within a lot of different countries. The data was taken from a study of 82 countries, which encompasses all sorts of different situations and all different religious affiliations, including people of no religion, in present times and in past times. The rates of reproduction were virtually a constant, averaging 2.5 for the religious groups, and 1.7 for non-religious, which is below replacement rate. Thus, the evidence indicates that religion is adaptive from the point of view of human genes, not viral, and that's why Sue Blackmore held her hands up, because she acknowledged the empirical evidence (which is the gold standard for any scientific view) of the data and the value of it to the discussion.0
-
you're misrepresenting me by insisting on using the quote "could not" ..... refusing to discuss your theories, because they were Dawkins', .....
How can I misrepresent you by quoting and replying to exactly what you said? Are you just deliberately trying not to make sense now? You are almost like a sock puppet for Jakkass / Philo the way you are acting now. You said... and it was the reason I replied to you... that we "could not" have evolved without religion. Those were your words. That is what I replied to and I have shown that this position is baseless and unsubstantiated. So it is no suprise that you would distance yourself from that position, but to do so by pretending like quoting you directly is "misrepresenting" you is nothing short of desperte. Really it is.
Again if you have a problem with something that Dawkins has said or done then take it up with him. I am not he. If you want to reply to things I have said then I am here for you however.In terms of evolution, survival without reproduction is a dead end.
In the attempt to get our genes into the next generation, a one child policy wouldn't get us far
For an entire species yes. However this claim is entirely false on the level of individuals or of groups of individuals within a species. Many species have non reproducing elements and this works to their advantage not their detriment. Reproduction is not everything much as you might want to pretend it is. Also reproduction in greater numbers is also not everything. Reproducing once is sometimes "better" than doing it multiple times. Your comment on "one child policies" is therefore baseless. In fact the variety of numbers of offspring is... as variety usually is in evolution.... a strength.
So although there is truth in this line from you, it is... like most of your knowledge thus far displayed on the subject of evolution... simplistic and incomplete. At the level of talking to another lay man on the subject you might get away with it, but here I can assure you that you are not talking to such a person and you would do well to correct the errors in your knowledge that I have outlined numerous times already. The errors you make are in themselves simple and easy to rectify. The amount of guff they lead you to talk on the subject of evoltuion however is disproportionate.
When you correct these errors the rest of your errors on claiming that religion promoted, helps promote or usefully promotes reproduction and/or communal benefits will rectify themselves in turn and so I see no need to say more about them on your last post having corrected these errors many times already. Suffice to say that your automatically equating more reproduction and "better" is wrong, as is your attempts to suggest religion causes more reproduction.Memes lack a definition, can't be observed or proven. Ironically, you said you fail to see things that are not there. You can't see meme
That would entirely depend on how you are defining "memes" and what you think they are. You think words exist right? Words are memes. So if you think one exists, you think the other exists and so your error will correct itself again.
Also I am baffled as to what "seeing" something has to do with suggesting it exists. You can not see protons either, or light outside the normal human sight range. "Seeing" is not everything.you claim to be fighting against unsubstantiated claims
Yes that is my claim. My only problem is with unsubstantiated claims. Claims like "God exists" or "we could not have evolved without religion" or "Religion has benefited us" are all claims that are thus far entirely unsubstantiated. I am happy to keep pointing that out.Religion is a virus of the mind - it's a wonderful slogan, but that's all it is. A slogan being used by atheist propangandists.
Not at all. It is much more than a slogan. It is in fact a way of looking at religion that opens up whole new avenues of exploration into studying religion. And studying it is intensely important to us as a species for many reasons, including possibly the future survival of our species given religions potential to end it. A memetic view of religion is not only valid, but could open up whole avenues of research that were otherwise unthought of.You cannot accept any benefit, because your bias depends on it.
I am aware when losing an argument people like to go into ad hominem and move away from the facts and start talking about things like "bias". You can invent any bias for me you want if it makes you feel better. But the fact remains I can not accept any benefit of it because the claims there are benefits are unsubstantiated. Simple as. Thats all. If you want to pretend there are other reasons then so be it, but you are now making things up and not talking to me or with me, but at me. I think there are no benefits because I have not been shown any. Thats all.Finally, you say I have not substantiated the fact that religion is not going away. It's simple. You're bringing up all the arguments. They're bringing up all the children.
And yet, as pointed out to you and ignored many times already, atheism is still the fastest growing minority, artricles are being written around studies on the demise of religion in many countries, countires like germany and IReland are seeing the first negative numbers change in religions like Catholicism, and much much more. They can pump out children till the cows come home.... the trend still seems to be that religion is still on the slow decline, regardless of your throw away comments like this. Not to mention "all" the children is just poppycock anyway. Are you suggesting all atheists are sterile or what? They are having children just as successfully as anyone else. So your comment is not just meaningless, its wrong too.0 -
atheism tends to come with education, and our parents' and grandparents' generations didnt have the same level of that as we do. nor did they have the kind of exposure to the world that we do. they had religion bet into them in many cases, so you can't really think any less of them for it.
in the years and generations to come we'll see religion having less and less of a place in the civilised world anyway and even our current society will be looked back at with the same kind of shame we look back on the child abuse of previous generations
Is that a provable assumption? Or is it simply anecdotal? Atheists are no more knowledgable about the existence of a higher power than believers are in the majority of cases. It's simply their belief that god doesn't exist.
IThe insinuation that education implies a tendency towards atheism isn't entirely fair I believe.0 -
It's simply their belief that god doesn't exist.
Or slightly more accurately, it is their recognition of the fact that the idea that god DOES exist is so entirely devoid of evidence or substantiation that it makes more sense to dismiss the idea and proceed without it.
It also makes a lot of sense to resist the use and application of the idea that god exists in our halls of power, education, science and politics.0 -
If you believe the church is corrupt + power hungry and that god isn't real.
What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes? As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?
(p.s. I am an athiest and pondering this question myself. Not looking to start some sort of shame parade or anything)
my mother is very religious my dad isnt (prays in his own time)
me i dont believe in a god. i belive we make our mark on this world and thats all we can. I have respect for people that believe in a god who am i to say they are idiots even though other aethiests would say they are. I dont belive in a god for good reasons and any time i questioned a religion teacher/priest they couldnt answer my questions. I'm an aethiest in modern ireland is it a big deal? it surely is'nt worth a thread in after hours(jokes)
religion is a choice respect it:)0 -
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »Not for the vast majority of people it isn't.
Children don't ask to be indoctrinated in any particular 'faith' by their parents - that's hardly being given a choice.
dammit sorry i've had too much to drink tonight and i've over looked my main belief..my view is religiong is a choice when your an adult and your religion should only be chosen when your of legal age in eyes of the law:)
sorry chuck stone i feel like a dick for making that point
normally i would've said exactly like you 0 -
I am a Athiest and I have respect for people who have conviction in what they believe in, al la carts catholics do my head in!0
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30476
Advertisement