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.