The Big Religion/God Debate

[DarkOne]

Well, that escalated quickly! Shouldn't this be continued in the big religion debate? https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/off-topic/the-big-religion-god-debate-4379/

[rU`]

delete this,since the thread got split

[TheWalrus]

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/

The study you posted is an absolute joke, lol.  It's "evidence" includes a non-conclusive map of the US, as if all southerners are religious, and all northerners atheist.  All donations that were given to a religious charity were discounted, even though the largest charity network in the US, catholic charities USA, operates solely to distribute money for the greater good, and not for the gain of the church.  There is no differentiation between giving to the church and giving to a church-established charity, even though there is an explicit difference into where the money goes (If you don't understand what the difference is, just google tithing, then compare to donating to charity).  I can't believe your stomach can digest this pallette of bullshit that this article has served up.

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.

I made the argument they are philosophical inverses of one another.  That is what I mean.

Comparing Sweden to Iran is very extreme, Wally.

Again, I claimed they are philosophical inverses of one another.  Not so much a comparison as I was pointing out they are complete opposites.  Broadstrokes, D1.

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.

Mablak, you got the thrust of what I was saying perfectly before you lost your mind and cited racism, homophobia, and santa claus. 

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?

Morality doesn't even enter the equation.  Just the idea that people are free to practice and the state doesn't hinder their ability to do so. 

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?

The quote is in reference to zealotry, not the widely held beliefs of the group, but merely the radicals.  Example that damn autonomy: The atheist radicals that want to punish parents for child abuse in the instances of teaching their children their religion.  But there is a million, just google "atheist radical beliefs" or something to that effect, I don't think you need to though, it seems by the content of your posts you basically get it.

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.

Truer words have never been spoken.  Instead of focusing on the inherent positives that religion brings, Mablak has chosen to go down the road of demonizing all religious motives.  It's a slippery slope that I choose not to go down with my view on atheism.  I'm no atheist, but if I start damning everything they stand for, I lose my objectivity, which appears to be what has happened to Mablak with his views on Christians and the like. 

[KoreanRedDragon]

How does the indoctrination of children into a religion (or into a political party or anything else for that matter) not limit their personal freedom throughout the course of their lives? Had it not been for said indoctrination, religion would by now be a lot closer to being a thing of the past, and people in large parts of the world would objectively be freer (and thus happier, since everyone wants to bring happiness into this) for it, no?

When that happens, and I don't see how it eventually might not, the requirement for optimal social solutions to be "balanced" in terms of also appealing to people who believe things that aren't true will be gone, again benefitting society as a whole because of the increased efficiency and ease of implementation of these solutions. I think that's pretty solid reasoning for wanting to speed the process of religion becoming obsolete up, via civilised venues such as discourse, of course. And anyway, the study of religion would still exist in this future, the ideas wouldn't be lost forever or anything, they would merely be treated as myths and leverages of power over lower classes or over women or whatever, i.e. what they actually are.

tl;dr: Sweden > Iran.

It has a lot to do with the Auschwitz experience, but that doesn't explain all. As the UK and Australia are equally drifting in messed up and self-destructive political correctness, even though they have absolutely no reason to feel inner guilt about things that happened in the past.
Perhaps it's just a matter of old glory lost.

To anyone who believes the UK has nothing to feel guilty about, I highly recommend watching this documentary series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%282012_TV_series%29

On that note, if nationalistic ideals (essentially delusions of superiority) are so positive and healthy for the general atmosphere in a country, why is it that every such project so far has ended in bloodshed, genocide, racism, denial and eventually inherent fear of ever repeating the same mistake? How can that be healthier for a nation (let alone for, you know, humanity) than treating other cultures and systems of belief as intrinsically equal and equally interesting and worthy of study? Worldwide globalisation of values, knowledge, commerce, perhaps political power in the end, for all the fearmongering of eradicating individual cultures, is probably healthier for everyone involved, the only potentially sustainable way forward for the species. If anything, I feel small countries like Slovenia, with their languages on the brink of extinction, would stand a better chance of remaining relevant in a global atmosphere like that, where everyone is openly invited to visit and study them, as opposed to trying to run some sort of jealous nationalistic protectionism in the face of US, Russia and China permanently jockeying for position.

[Ryan]

Guess it was inevitable the thread would end up like this...

[KoreanRedDragon]

I'm counting on someone coming in and splitting the topic into two eventually. Until then, it'd be harder to try and start a fresh second one and funnel relevant debate there than it is to just continue posting here.

Happy birthday, by the way!

[darKz]

DarkOne, save the thread! I can't split threads for whatever reason.

Edit: Happy belated birthday Ryan!

[DarkOne]

MWUHAHAHAHAHA
UNLIMITED MOD POWERS!!!1

[HHC]

OMG did you just seperate state from church? OMFG!

The debate was kinda over neway? 

[TheWalrus]

OMG did you just seperate state from church? OMFG!

The debate was kinda over neway? 

There is no point arguing with the lunatic fringe.  I've done the best I can but some atheists are fixated on religion as a social evil, or even a redux on freedom that should be abolished.  I really don't have much incentive to carry on a dialogue when people start making the inference that religion is a product of being poorly informed or ignorant of scientific fact. 

[DarkOne]

I think the lunatic fringe is the main problem they have with religion
Or as Marcus Brigstocke put it: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4mSDD4Wd8

[Mablak]

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."

"The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet" Really? Atheism has always existed. As far as HDI, this is at least a better measurement of well-being than what you seem to be relying on, i.e. mere speculation, and the SSS is another more complex measurement that also correlates religiosity with reduced societal well-being. Keep in mind, I'm in no way arguing that religion necessarily reduces societal health in all cases, only that there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it aids societal health in comparison to a lack of religion, when the evidence (at best) could only support the opposite conclusion.

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.

It is hard to measure, but the Successful Societies Scale certainly includes factors such as life satisfaction, which would encompass effects such as optimism and pessimism.

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.

I probably agree that the west is headed towards a worsening economic situation, but again, you don't seem to be presenting any evidence that this is in any way linked to atheism (which you seem to associate with nihilism).

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.

So you're saying a general feeling of doubt and apprehension is going to be the death knell for US supremacy, that it'll be due to a loss of confidence in our mission of freedom and democracy. In that case, apparently we're not going downhill for any religious reasons, only for reasons involving lack of confidence in our government's motives.

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.

'Hurting the fabric of society', it's these claims I take issue with. You don't seem to have any evidence to support them. God is one of the major pillars of various parts of America, but millions of us do fine without this concept. If you think we're somehow worse off, less charitable, etc, than the religious, try finding some evidence to back up your assertions. More of us 'immoral' atheists in prison? It's actually the opposite. Atheists giving less? Again, it's the opposite, or at least hard to discern clearly. I don't particularly care to argue religious people are generally less moral than atheists, but there's no way to argue they're generally more moral.

[Aerox]

OMG did you just seperate state from church? OMFG!

The debate was kinda over neway? 

There is no point arguing with the lunatic fringe.  I've done the best I can but some atheists are fixated on religion as a social evil, or even a redux on freedom that should be abolished.  I really don't have much incentive to carry on a dialogue when people start making the inference that religion is a product of being poorly informed or ignorant of scientific fact.

Social evil? I already asked if you were trying to balance the good vs the bad of religion for the overall of society. You didn't answer. Speaking for myself, I'd never go there. However, there's lots of bad coming from religion. People live happier with faith sure. There are studies revealing that being a slave also offers comfort to one's live.

Sure, there's money laundering, there's food for the poor and there's erm... spiritual guidance... sure that's good for society. But what about all the actual documented evils religion has brought, and brings by nature?

Is it because us humans got religion all wrong? Is religion good but our intepretation of it leads us to do bad things because we're bad but religion isn't? I really don't get why we're the crazys because we see things for what they are? What are we missing? A revelation?

[Mablak]

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/

The study you posted is an absolute joke, lol.  It's "evidence" includes a non-conclusive map of the US, as if all southerners are religious, and all northerners atheist.  All donations that were given to a religious charity were discounted, even though the largest charity network in the US, catholic charities USA, operates solely to distribute money for the greater good, and not for the gain of the church.  There is no differentiation between giving to the church and giving to a church-established charity, even though there is an explicit difference into where the money goes (If you don't understand what the difference is, just google tithing, then compare to donating to charity).  I can't believe your stomach can digest this pallette of bullshit that this article has served up.

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.

I made the argument they are philosophical inverses of one another.  That is what I mean.

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.

Mablak, you got the thrust of what I was saying perfectly before you lost your mind and cited racism, homophobia, and santa claus. 

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.

Truer words have never been spoken.  Instead of focusing on the inherent positives that religion brings, Mablak has chosen to go down the road of demonizing all religious motives.  It's a slippery slope that I choose not to go down with my view on atheism.  I'm no atheist, but if I start damning everything they stand for, I lose my objectivity, which appears to be what has happened to Mablak with his views on Christians and the like.

Wally, the map doesn't necessitate that all southerners be religious, and all northerners be atheists. If southern states have much higher populations of the religious (and the states listed do), and the average religious person donates more of their disposable income to charities, then it follows that those states would, on the whole, have a greater percentage of disposable income donated towards charities. Yet this isn't what we see if we exclude churches and religious groups, and only include the groups that both sides would agree are providing charity.

"Mablak, you got the thrust of what I was saying perfectly before you lost your mind and cited racism, homophobia, and santa claus." If I got the thrust of what you were saying, then I'd say my examples actually made sense. You were saying something would necessarily be lost if we didn't have a society with multiple opinions on the god issue. I provided counterexamples where absolutely nothing is lost in terms of having a single opinion on some issue, where in fact it's better to have that single opinion. The point I was making is that given such counterexamples, a society having a very uniform opinion on some issue is therefore not necessarily a bad thing.

Catholic Charities USA, by The Economist's estimation, has about 4.7% of its wealth going specifically towards charities per year: http://www.economist.com/node/21560536. The issue however, is that religious organizations don't have to disclose how much they spend on actual charity, so there's some guesswork. I've seen estimations that the average religious organization spends 71% of its income on operating expenses alone (certainly way more than a lot of secular organizations): http://www.newsweek.com/are-churches-making-america-poor-243734. The article I quoted, while illustrating the worst case scenario of essentially none of the average religious-organization-donator's money going towards actual charitable causes, is not going to be far off.

As for inherent positives, no one has demonstrated that there are in fact positives that religion brings, that secularism doesn't also bring (on the whole). I did not demonize religious motives in any way; I may think the religious who do good are sometimes doing so for the wrong reasons, but I wouldn't suggest they're not doing good when they perform acts that genuinely help people. You seem to have assumed I'm saying that religion reduces empathy, giving, etc, when I'm merely arguing there's no evidence that it boosts these things above what the non-religious do.

[Statik]

Just imagine all people will realize there is no god and judgment day... people have to believe in something (or drink vodka).