The Big Religion/God Debate

[rU`]

delete this,since the thread got split

[Twyrfher]

They have become lazy, spoiled hedonists who care only about their personal pursuit of happiness.

What easy come easy go... when you have all for free, some people don't give a shit about work hard for their stuff, what for...
Nice posts guys, hope new wormers comes here with their experiences from their countries :D

[Mablak]

Northern europeans don't believe in anything anymore, neither in God nor in any other big scheme. They have become lazy, spoiled hedonists who care only about their personal pursuit of happiness.
It's OK living in societies like that, but I don't consider them 'healthy'. On the contrary, they are likely to self-pwn into non-existence.

In that respect the countries of eastern & southern Europe and the USA are much healthier. They also lack a religion, but they still got a vivid national cultus to keep people united, proud and hard-working.

What exactly is unhealthy about more atheistic societies? By measurements such as the Human Development Index, there's actually a very clear correlation with more religiosity and worse quality of life, which could imply that religion worsens quality of life (should be obvious in many countries like Afghanistan), and/or that those with poor quality of life seek religion, and/or various underlying factors. But I don't see any way to argue that a lack of theism, deism, etc, worsens society, when all the evidence points the other way: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/

Also, the US is actually the most religious first-world country. Not so much in the north, but definitely in the south. We're becoming less religious for sure, but nearly 100% of our politicians are religious; you can barely even run for office if you're not a Christian.

[Peja]

since most winners of the nobel price come from a very religious country,  your point is utterly bullshit.
besides, religious organisations do the majority of social support. simply because religion is about social values. it goes from building up communities to direct financial help. but maybe there are atheist organisations in oregon doing the same thing haha. you dont need to believe in god to notice its a good thing to help people. speaking from germany, the major adress for people in trouble are christian organisations. its quite a huge offer, including guidance when you have debts, psychological illnes... . they also organise integration courses for  workless  or take care of  homeless, or ambulant care for ill people.   

[Husk]

well said peja, I don't believe in god, but I believe in the good work church does =)

[Mablak]

since most winners of the nobel price come from a very religious country,  your point is utterly bullshit.
besides, religious organisations do the majority of social support. simply because religion is about social values. it goes from building up communities to direct financial help. but maybe there are atheist organisations in oregon doing the same thing haha. you dont need to believe in god to notice its a good thing to help people. speaking from germany, the major adress for people in trouble are christian organisations. its quite a huge offer, including guidance when you have debts, psychological illnes... . they also organise integration courses for  workless  or take care of  homeless, or ambulant care for ill people.

Whether Nobel prize winners come from religious countries or not has nothing to do with HHC's suggestion that religion somehow improves the 'health' of society (nor does this even show said prize winners are actually religious). What point did you think I was making, that religious people are less intelligent?

Your claim that religious organizations do the majority of support is true, merely because there are many more religious people than non-religious people, the question is what proportion of each is doing good. There are plenty of non-religious organizations doing good in the US and elsewhere, like Doctors Without Borders, which the atheist section of reddit has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for, Oxfam, the ACLU, Unicef, the Red Cross, Foundation Beyond Belief, Planned Parenthood, KIVA, The American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association (many countries have these), Direct Relief International, etc. And these organizations help people without the added harm of proselytizing irrational beliefs. There is precious little evidence to suggest a religion-free world would somehow do less good than a religious one, given how much good secular organizations accomplish in relation to their small numbers.

[Aerox]

Peja, care to tell us how much money the goverment gives you and how much does the church?

The onle reason backwards countries happen to be the most religious has nothing to do with the church it's all to do with access to education and the level of it.

well said peja, I don't believe in god, but I believe in the good work church does =)

is this the kind of shit people claim up north nowadays? At least god has this "faith" thing going on for him, the only thing that keeps the working class in the shit holes of the world going forward.

I bet those millions of billions they have in furniture are doing very good to the world by sitting there, in their hundreds of castles whilst kids day by the minute because they can't afford a 23 cent medication.

On the topic of people not seeing themselves living elsewhere it's lack of traveling or lack of perspective for the most part. You live where you live by random chance. Chances are you would find a better place if you had the knowledge and experience to choose amongst all places in the world based on your preferences. Of course, if most of your preferences are media/society induced you'll most likely need  to exercise an open mind to get out your comfort zone.

Specially considering plenty of you haven't even traveled your countries fully (me included) and that there's plenty of difference between some cities in some countries.

[DarkOne]

I know what you mean, HHC, I feel like such a hedonist during my 24 hour shifts

There are also jobs Americans won't do, Mexicans and Cubans have to do those over there (among other nationalities, of course). I'm sure economy has a far bigger influence than religion in that regard.

Mablak has been watching Matt Dillahunty, it would seem!

[TheWalrus]

Your claim that religious organizations do the majority of support is true, merely because there are many more religious people than non-religious people, the question is what proportion of each is doing good. There are plenty of non-religious organizations doing good in the US and elsewhere, like Doctors Without Borders, which the atheist section of reddit has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for, Oxfam, the ACLU, Unicef, the Red Cross, Foundation Beyond Belief, Planned Parenthood, KIVA, The American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association (many countries have these), Direct Relief International, etc. And these organizations help people without the added harm of proselytizing irrational beliefs. There is precious little evidence to suggest a religion-free world would somehow do less good than a religious one, given how much good secular organizations accomplish in relation to their small numbers.

I think you are in the same ballpark as I am on this one Mab, but there are a few points I think you took some liberties with.  You claim that proportionally there are more religious people than non-religious people, which is true.  You claim that there is a question of what proportion of each is doing the most good.  You really don't have an argument on this one.  Religious people, say, per capita for our uses, give more than non-religious people.  Adjusting for the overall disparity of numbers still yields raw data that the religious are giving money at a much, much higher rate than the non-religious.  I've seen the numbers, I can't really remember where, but should you choose to dispute this point I'm sure I can dig it up.

If you really wanted to argue the disparity, I would stick with the fact that more money is given by religious people because the majority of the upper class, the people who give the most, are the religious right in the USA.  The few of this class gives more than any other group at very high rates, bolstered by the fact they are receiving tax breaks, which further incentivizes them to continue "giving".  These folks basically blow any atheist grassroots type programs out of the water in aggregate gross donations.  We don't know how much donating the atheists would do if they controlled the upper class, perhaps as much, but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise.  In short, of course religious people are giving more money.  They have more money to give.

The "proselytizing", or purveying of these irrational and harmful beliefs extends far less than I imagine you conceive it does.  How many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large?  A minority, to be sure.  I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses.  Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements. 

To me, the answer lies in the middle.  Countries are different because the ruling bodies have been composed of like-minded people who have either usurped power or forced out opposition, and rarer still, the countries who have balanced both sides.  The atheists must be balanced with the religious to ensure harmony, because neither side is going away.  I submit to you that countries such as Sweden are inherently flawed as a Iran, for example.  Not to the extent of overall happiness, but philosophically.  One group has become too strong and drowned out the minority opinion.  The smartest thinkers in my estimation are those that can compromise, and a solution is only as good as its application by the people it is intended for. 

I love the USA because it is a country where discourse is as free as the Obamaphones.

Walrus
(Your friendly neighborhood evangelical)

[Mablak]

Your claim that religious organizations do the majority of support is true, merely because there are many more religious people than non-religious people, the question is what proportion of each is doing good. There are plenty of non-religious organizations doing good in the US and elsewhere, like Doctors Without Borders, which the atheist section of reddit has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for, Oxfam, the ACLU, Unicef, the Red Cross, Foundation Beyond Belief, Planned Parenthood, KIVA, The American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association (many countries have these), Direct Relief International, etc. And these organizations help people without the added harm of proselytizing irrational beliefs. There is precious little evidence to suggest a religion-free world would somehow do less good than a religious one, given how much good secular organizations accomplish in relation to their small numbers.

I think you are in the same ballpark as I am on this one Mab, but there are a few points I think you took some liberties with.  You claim that proportionally there are more religious people than non-religious people, which is true.  You claim that there is a question of what proportion of each is doing the most good.  You really don't have an argument on this one.  Religious people, say, per capita for our uses, give more than non-religious people.  Adjusting for the overall disparity of numbers still yields raw data that the religious are giving money at a much, much higher rate than the non-religious.  I've seen the numbers, I can't really remember where, but should you choose to dispute this point I'm sure I can dig it up.

If you really wanted to argue the disparity, I would stick with the fact that more money is given by religious people because the majority of the upper class, the people who give the most, are the religious right in the USA.  The few of this class gives more than any other group at very high rates, bolstered by the fact they are receiving tax breaks, which further incentivizes them to continue "giving".  These folks basically blow any atheist grassroots type programs out of the water in aggregate gross donations.  We don't know how much donating the atheists would do if they controlled the upper class, perhaps as much, but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise.  In short, of course religious people are giving more money.  They have more money to give.

The "proselytizing", or purveying of these irrational and harmful beliefs extends far less than I imagine you conceive it does.  How many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large?  A minority, to be sure.  I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses.  Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements. 

To me, the answer lies in the middle.  Countries are different because the ruling bodies have been composed of like-minded people who have either usurped power or forced out opposition, and rarer still, the countries who have balanced both sides.  The atheists must be balanced with the religious to ensure harmony, because neither side is going away.  I submit to you that countries such as Sweden are inherently flawed as a Iran, for example.  Not to the extent of overall happiness, but philosophically.  One group has become too strong and drowned out the minority opinion.  The smartest thinkers in my estimation are those that can compromise, and a solution is only as good as its application by the people it is intended for. 

I love the USA because it is a country where discourse is as free as the Obamaphones.

Walrus
(Your friendly neighborhood evangelical)

I believe the claim that religious people give more (even as a percentage of their disposable income if we're going to account for wealth differences), has no evidence going for it. The only studies I've seen making this claim include church donations as charitable ones, even though the majority of church donations go towards operating costs. The Mormon Church, for example, gives only about 0.7% of its annual income to charity. If we dismiss 'church' counting as 'charity', religious states in the US don't actually donate more than the less religious states: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

Granted, church donations 'could' be considered charitable donations if the idea of heaven, god, etc, were real, in which case paying for the operation of churches could be argued to serve a purpose. So it necessarily gets into the god debate; I don't believe these concepts are real, and thus think church activities such as sermons are not helpful to society. As for atheistic views (speaking of which, there isn't technically any position attached to atheism aside from not believing in god), this is kind of a tangent isn't it? The non-religious organizations I listed are for the most part not doing proselytizing of any kind, though some humanist organizations do some amount of promoting free speech, promoting the value of science, evidence, and reason, etc, but none of those values could be considered objectionable. Moreover, they're not things they promote in tandem with helping people, they're not handing out pamphlets at the soup kitchens.

Not quite sure what you mean about Iran versus Sweden though, happiness or well-being is the only thing that I think can possibly matter in terms of morality. For example, if you're saying Sweden is losing its capacity for critical thought, because there are too many people who agree with each other on the god issue, this would seem to be an argument that they could be missing out on some important philosophical realizations that would engender greater happiness for them if they had more theists around (and producing greater happiness would seem to be the only reason philosophy is important). I don't really see this as an issue though, we're not losing out on anything by having a society where everyone's in agreement that say, racism, homophobia, etc, are wrong, or that Santa Claus isn't real.

[DarkOne]

Comparing Sweden to Iran is very extreme, Wally. It's not actually forbidden to have a religion in Sweden. Look at doubletime, he's from Sweden and couldn't wait to tell everybody around him about his religion. There are a lot of refugees from Iran in other countries. If there's a Swede in another country, he/she is not a refugee.

Also, you're confusing atheism with anarchy. Just saying

[Aerox]

How many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large?  A minority, to be sure.

you mean historically or right now? are you trying to put in a balance the hinder to progress religion has in a society versus the good it makes making everyone support each other? I have assumptions of my own you see, and it has to do with religion education being more accesible than genuine education. There's plenty of poor ass countries with religious working class, you think these people are genuinely good because of god or are stupid enough that they believe that doing their deeds is their only way out of the slump? Is it moraly right for those societies because it keeps the working class from giving up on life completely?

I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses.  Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements. 

really now, idiots do exist everywhere, but tell me what sort of atheist views damn autonomy? and how many people have been murdered on the name of atheism?

[HHC]

What exactly is unhealthy about more atheistic societies? By measurements such as the Human Development Index, there's actually a very clear correlation with more religiosity and worse quality of life, which could imply that religion worsens quality of life (should be obvious in many countries like Afghanistan), and/or that those with poor quality of life seek religion, and/or various underlying factors. But I don't see any way to argue that a lack of theism, deism, etc, worsens society, when all the evidence points the other way: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/

IMO that evidence is bogus. The south has been doing shitty economywise ever since the civil war. At that time the north was just as religious, but not dependent on slave labour, cotton and other outdated sources of wealth.
The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet. And it persists to this day.. why? I don't think anyone really knows.

I also don't think you should measure a society's 'health' by means of the HDI, as it only measures three criteria: life expectancy, education & income. And these three are all intertwined. If you got the money there's no problem organizing decent healthcare & education. Without money.... it's an unachievable goal.
The real health of a society is hard to measure, as it encompasses immaterial factors such as 'citizenship', 'responsibility', 'self-confidence', 'ambition', 'philosophical views' (optimism vs pessimism or nihilism), etcetera.

And judging by these values I imagine the west not doing so well anymore. They may be rich, but they owe it almost entirely to the generations that came before them. They lack the inner drive of the people that live in the upcoming economies. The people in East Asia & Eastern Europe work much harder, don't dwell in decadent nihilism, but are proud of who they are and know what they are working to achieve. That makes their societies more healthy than ours IMO.. there's much more potential there and it will only be a matter of time before they have gathered enough wealth to set up supreme health care & education.
But unfortunately for them, they too define their goal merely in material terms. So they are likely to end up at the same place as us.

If a nation (or empire) wishes to maintain its dominance it's vital not only to hold onto its economic & political dominance, but also to maintain its 'spiritual' drive.
The failure to do so is IMO one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire, as well as it is for the "downfall" of the US in modern times. The sense of mission that drove the Americans is quickly being replaced by a general feeling of doubt and apprehension. I'm pretty sure people in the future will consider the Iraqi affair as the death sentence of US supremacy, not because there they encountered the boundaries of their might, but solely because they lost faith in the validity of the American mission worldwide to bring freedom & democracy to people supposedly eagerly craving for it.

We're becoming less religious for sure, but nearly 100% of our politicians are religious; you can barely even run for office if you're not a Christian.

As much as it may hurt your atheist heart.. I wouldn't complain about it. God is one of the major pillars of American society, if you break it down you will surely hurt the moral fabric of society, and thereby, society itself.

[Aerox]

so where does this drive eastern europeans and asians come from besides world domination?

are you saying communism keeps a country going because it stops everyone from getting rich and thus falling into lazyness?

goals.. aims.. "spiritual drive"... all this should be covered by a modern education that focuses on motivations and creativity and not industriality and teachers building teachers.

[HHC]

so where does this drive eastern europeans and asians come from besides world domination?

are you saying communism keeps a country going because it stops everyone from getting rich and thus falling into lazyness?

Communism doesn't, but thanks to communism the people of these regions have become poor, while the new capitalist system offers them opportunities to gain wealth & luxury, and that is what drives them and with them, their whole nation.

goals.. aims.. "spiritual drive"... all this should be covered by a modern education that focuses on motivations and creativity and not industriality and teachers building teachers.

Depends on the economy. The basic economy of the Chinese that is build on cheap industrial labour can do perfectly without, while the western IT industries definitely need creative & flexible minds.
Best is of course an accumulation of both. But how can you keep people industrious without the impetuous of gathering money? Pressure of society can to some degree, but it's often a negative force then. Real ambition comes from within; from a sense of responsibility and goal in life. Mentality matters, and things like religion & philosophy can provide that.