See, there's some really good examples of the problems of religion in this thread.
The idea that the costs of religion are non-existent. That they're zero. This is the sort of absolutist overly dogmatic thinking that results in bad stuff happening. It can happen in religion and it can happen outside of religion (political ideology, such as communism or Movement Conservativism. No they're not equally ideologically extreme, but the absolutist thinking is pretty much the same in both cases). But, religion is often a quick, and here's the kicker, socially accepted way to get to that point.
But it's the thinking that there's nothing that can or should or whatever be improved about one's religion that makes the cost so great. It makes it untouchable. And this is wrong. Because in one's particular case, it might not matter if it's untouchable...one's beliefs might be strictly positive for the world. But that's not always the case. And the privilege that's claimed out for oneself, because well..my religious belief is GOOD, is also claimed for the BAD religious belief.
Positive stereotypes can be just as bad for society as negative stereotypes, in other words. OR
The problem is the privilege.
Now personally, I think that the concept of an interventionist, materialistic deity and the concept of the problem of evil mix together in a particularly dangerous brew. Not to say that all people who believe in an interventionist deity will act in bad ways, not at all. Just that it's very volatile, and can be quite problematic.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveOf course there are problems with religion.
The OP is simply bad at identifying them.
I am now known as Flyboy.Well, studies have actually shown that people who have a religion, any religion, are more likely to 1) live longer 2) get through things like having cancer better 3) not get depressed, or recover quicker from depression and stuff like PTSD 4) recover from addictions or not be addicted int he first place, 5) feel happier.
Also a lot of charity is done through religion. So you know, the personal benefits of religion are pretty extensive.
SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)Heavy sigh. There has been a holler on this thread stating there have already been many threads created on this topic and we don't need more. I am inclined to agree but everyone seems to be acting like rational humans at this point. Keep it that way or this puppy's going down.
edited 5th Dec '11 4:26:44 AM by blackcat
Those using bad science can claim their science is good too, even though if it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Nobody will think to put the bad science on equal footing with good science. Same with bad interpretations of religion, it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. There is a reason the extremists never recruits somebody with more religious knowledge, their wrongs can be immediately seen. However, bad interpretation of religion IS put on equal footings with good interpretation of religion, which is really unfair.
If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?![]()
![]()
The question arises of what the meaning of 'religion' is in that sentence: Just some kind of spirituality? Personal religious practice (ie. involving certain rituals)? Participation in some kind of organized religion? *
So, Citation Needed
.
edited 5th Dec '11 5:01:00 AM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'The OP would claim all those things are harmful, so it doesn't really matter in this context.
I am now known as Flyboy.lol @ USAF when this makes it to page three.
I'm not sure that religious belief is the relevant factor here. The problem isn't religion per se but rather doing shit like this
. The many religious people who don't do shit like that or tolerate others who do are all chill. These negative behaviours are expressions of deeper mechanisms in human cognition, and to declare religion the problem seems to be attacking the symptom rather than the disease.
The only problem with religious affiliation, and it is far from the only kind of affiliation that has this effect, is that inethical or insane behaviour is occasionally excused by the rest of a religious community when performed by a religious leader, in which case religion can serve to mask and protect problematic acts. But that's a problem easily solved with a little clear judgment - being a community leader of any type should never grant you impunity.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Blurring: One thing you should try to keep in mind is that as much as anything, that's a self-created problem. Not that I mean that you created it, but that a lot of religious leaders put a lot of time and energy in promoting the idea that religion, or specific religions or whatever are blanket concepts. Now, these concepts are always 100% positive of course. It's the positive stereotype that I mention above.
But because of this, you can't really blame people who RESPOND to the privilege as such.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveUSAF, I really think you are over-reacting here.
And even that is apart from countries like Japan, known for both a high atheist population and a strong work ethic.
And BTW, generally speaking, the same people letting CEOs off the hook for this tend to let religious leaders off the hook for it too.
And the point is not just about what specific religious people think of specific scientific issues. It is that in practice religion encourages dogma rather than skeptical analysis of the logic behind these things. If they do so with belief in god, (let alone with such questions as what god wants of people) what is to stop them from doing so with what people say about genetically engineered crops?
And the thing is, the alternatives to capitalism tried thus far are either better-regulated capitalism (which is still technically capitalistic) or full-blown socialism, and the latter has not worked out so well so far.
edited 5th Dec '11 9:40:35 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartIdeologies synonymous with the fiat of the State are always a bad thing, so we can discount Communism and the Inquisition out of hand.
The answer, then, is that we don't have a control group. Religion has always been a major force in human relations and likely always will be. But the axiom that you don't let anyone get too powerful works for religion as much as it works for anything else.
Hail Martin Septim!Actually, I think that the OP, though heartfelt, is missing the point by a huge margin. You're not supposed to believe in God because of the benefits, that's sophistry, you're supposed to believe because you think it's true. No one I ever heard of adopted religious faith because of the supposed "benefits" it brings, nor do I know of anyone that ever lost their faith due to it's "costs" (unless you mean personal costs but that's a different matter).
Religion is a lot like art, or entertainment, in that it satisfies a basic psychological need. You believe in a God because that's what it takes to feel right about yourself and your place in the universe, logic having little if anything to do with it. If someone somehow demonstrated that owning pets did more harm to the planet than good* who here thinks that everyone would give up their dogs and cats? Why would we expect them to give up belief in God?
Besides, if there is a God, then there is, and if forming a religion about this causes some people to go crazy, that may be less important than expressing what, from the believer's perspective, is the truth. This is a problem related to some people's ability to conduct themselves, not the desirability of adopting a belief.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
This is my view as well, more or less.
People don't become religious (or atheist) on the basis of rational cost-benefit analysis. The argument reminds me of Pascal's Wager, the French philosopher's argument that we should believe in God essentially because if we do, we stand to gain the most if He exists and lose the least if He doesn't.
But you can't make yourself believe in things because you approve of their good or bad effects, only because you accept their truth for rational and/or emotional reasons.
"Well, it's a lifestyle"No, it's really about how we treat those beliefs. Now I'm not talking about ostracizing everybody with religious beliefs. I'm talking about looking at those beliefs on an individual basis, seeing what they mean and looking at their positive and negative external and internal effects (and remember, external is valued higher than internal, but it's not infinitely so) and forming an opinion thusly.
It's different than how many religious leaders want us to look at religion, where if it's religious it must be pure as the driven snow. And maybe some atheist writers/speakers, are the opposite, however, I'll be honest. It's not as much as you guys think. Most non-believers value freedom of religion, of course.
However, what's not valued is the idea that religion should be above criticism. Quite frankly, nothing should be. And that's where the problem is. That's where most of the costs come from. And you can remove it without removing the religious experience...it just happens to involve some people giving up some power. It probably also requires religious groups to put cultural prestige on the back burner, to be honest.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveAnd even that is apart from countries like Japan, known for both a high atheist population and a strong work ethic.
No, the poor and middle class do, as that serves their interest. If we let the rich control everything it would inevitably trend towards Right-wing economics, as that's what serves their interest.
Besides, religion typically espouses more Left-wing, "provide for all at least basic needs"-type ideas. Just because American conservatives have perverted the message doesn't mean it's the message's fault.
Ideal =/= holder of the ideal.
And again, that isn't the ideal's fault, then. It was already noted, the Church itself said to use the damn condoms. Tell it to all the fools who lack logical skills, and don't blame the religion itself when it's telling the fools that they're wrong.
Not really. Countries have already developed reasonable aid models. See: Canada.
It's simply more lucrative for the First and Second Worlds to exploit poor nations.
And the Church no longer opposes it, so the point is moot.
No, they aren't. Look at the Banana Republics and Cold War.
And, in fact, globalization would do far worse than religious outreach. I'd rather have a religious organization that will help me if I at least pay lip-service to them, rather than a transnational that only cares if I'm willing to work 16-hours-a-day for next-to-nothing and will drop me in a heartbeat for someone else if I object.
Bullshit. Have you seen the US tax code? The rich pay less than the middle class.
According to this
article, people only contributed $36 billion to American churches in '08-'09. That's from 45 million people.
And of the 299 top CEOs, they made a total of $3.6 billion alone. That's 45 million people against less than 300.
Against the American GDP and national debt, and our largest government programs, $36 billion is chump change.
I wouldn't let either one off the hook; I've become open to taxing the income of churches that isn't used for charity work, provided it's done in a way that isn't used to try and tax religion into non-existence and subvert freedom of religion.
And yet the official position of the Catholic and most mainline Protestant churches is that science is a good thing that is completely compatible with religion. Not to mention tons of scientific discoveries in the past centuries done by religious institutions.
Genetics? Discovered by a monk.
Navigational techniques? Designed by Muslims pushing to always know where Mecca is.
Besides, what have churches done that science hasn't? The religious institutions of the world didn't give us nuclear, biological, or chemical WMDs, scientists in their labs did.
And? It's not as if we'd be a perfect world if nobody ever questioned scientists. They're human too, and they do stupid and immoral things just as often as the rest of us.
Except communist ideas—once again, ideals twisted horribly by the fallacies of man—did lead to that shit.
And again, being an atheist in the '50s didn't get you dragged before the House, being a Communist did.
Sure it is. It makes an assertion that is ultimately spiritual in nature, even if it's a negative one. The only non-religious position is pure agnosticism, which is exceptionally rare in reality.
I do grant that agnostic atheism is, by and large, probably the most logical and rational position when it comes to religion, though I myself disagree with it.
He basically claimed that religion is the reason why there's crazies that want to bring about Rapture and the end of the world.
Ignore the fact that they are themselves absolutely insane, and are twisting religion for their own purposes, of course.
This is pointless then. If statistics and science isn't good enough for the secular humanists, this is a meaningless discussion.
I am not pro-religion, I am anti-anti-religion, as I consider it nonsensical to believe that religion—rather than economics—is the cause of all our historical problems as a species.
And again, we didn't use "atheist" as a slur ever in the Cold War in popular culture, but being a communist was good enough to get you labeled as an enemy spy, right to free speech, association, and privacy be damned.
I am also not anti-capitalist, I am anti-Right-wing free market unregulated capitalism.
I am now known as Flyboy.As a concept, religion is not awfull. However, to ignore that it has problems is being hopelessly idiotic.
Anyways:
@"Missionaries steal culture thingie": In my opinion, missionaries are the most vile people on earth. Aiding in exchange for conversion is morally repulsive.
"Once again, only the fanatics deny evolution. The official Catholic Church position is that evolution is real. My Catholic high school taught evolution and only evolution, sans intelligent design."
Still doesn't deny the fact that Xianity is to blame in the first place.
"Actually, most conflicts are caused by economic tensions. Religion is just window dressing. See: the Crusades. They didn't go in to take over the Holy Land, they went in to attempt to reunite the Roman Empire for profit. The Holy Land wars were the bonus."
The "Crusades were just for economic reasons lawl" is bullshit. The Holy Land might as well be called "Shit Land"; there's nothing of value there except importance for jew, christian and muslim faiths. The wars in the Holy Land were fought over a useless pile of rocks.
A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cultI can't say they're the most vile people on Earth, but I agree that such a thing is absurdly immoral, in my opinion.
To blame for what, halting progress on evolution? I'm inclined to say, so what? It's not as if we've found a practical application for the theory yet.
Given that there were multiple large cities down there and a thriving empire with significant trade, I think your conceptualization falls too much into "the Middle East is a giant, barren desert!"
Also, I already said, the Pope went to war to try and leverage Muslim pressure on the Byzantine Empire to attempt and reunite the Roman Empire. Thus, even the bits that were practically worthless still had significant value due to cultural ties.
I do grant that religious fervor fueled the soldiers to do really retarded shit, but that again stems from a perversion of the religion, not the ideal itself.
I highly doubt that Jesus, as he is presented in the Bible, would approve of many of the things done by organized religion since his death.
I am now known as Flyboy.To blame for what, halting progress on evolution? I'm inclined to say, so what? It's not as if we've found a practical application for the theory yet.
For stalling progress. And there's plenty of applications for evolution (your dogs, to begin with), and even then, although I'm amorally pragmatic, I still believe in not denying the truth.
Given that there were multiple large cities down there and a thriving empire with significant trade, I think your conceptualization falls too much into "the Middle East is a giant, barren desert!" Also, I already said, the Pope went to war to try and leverage Muslim pressure on the Byzantine Empire to attempt and reunite the Roman Empire. Thus, even the bits that were practically worthless still had significant value due to cultural ties.
Most of said large cities were thriving due to parasitism from richer terrains. That area, even before civilasation, was not very fertile, and it's economic importance was in part provided by the silk route and other eastern asian things that were demanded en mass.
edited 5th Dec '11 4:37:14 PM by Gannetwhale
A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Actually, MGIFS, the way to the future is for humanity to fucking deal with the fact that not everyone is going to believe the same. Insulting people as you just did in that last post is a large part of what's holding us back. You essentially just called millions of people superstitious retards. The real growing up is accepting the fact that as far as belief goes, there's absolutely no way that you're going to convince all nine billion plus of us that there is only one right way to believe and live, and it is only an immature bratty child that attempts to do so or believes that's the way to utopia.
You have also just gotten just about everything wrong with what Christians believe. (I say Christians because the things you've said and listed pretty much indicate Christians as opposed to Jews or Buddhists or whatever, even though you seem to be addressing any religion in general in your first post.) Atheism doesn't bring magical, mystical enlightenment with it, and you have vastly, incredibly, misjudged human nature if you think that's the cure-all to our ills.
edited 4th Dec '11 11:26:45 PM by AceofSpades