What are the rules...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
For those who doesn't know evolution, and for those who doesn't care, it's crap.
For people interested in science it's a fantastic theory, explaining everything that the theory is meant to explain. It's a near genius theory!

Only those in the category of numbnuts would believe evolution is science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only those in the category of numbnuts would believe evolution is science.

You've heard that by your friends evilutionists.

You don't know what science is. And you don't know what evolution is. You are just proud of your ignorance.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I almost agree SG but I cannot think of
country going to war because of its atheism.

Sure - they'd have to market the war some other way. But they still have the same human desires to control territory and resources. There are plenty of other rhetorical ways to justify a war in the absence of religion.

A society must have specific beliefs that aggression is wrong and peace is worthwhile. Religion, or the lack thereof, does not tell you whether a society has those specific beliefs.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sure - they'd have to market the war some other way. But they still have the same human desires to control territory and resources. There are plenty of other rhetorical ways to justify a war in the absence of religion.

A society must have specific beliefs that aggression is wrong and peace is worthwhile. Religion, or the lack thereof, does not tell you whether a society has those specific beliefs.

A lot of wars and violence are extensions of tribalism.

Religions encourage tribalism.

Atheism does not.


Look the only way to settle this is to go through the statistics in detail,
but I think any argument that says that religions are not responsible for
increased violence because "people would have found other excuses/reasons
for violence" is disingenuous.

Plenty of studies have shown that otherwise nice normal people can be induced
to do terrible things with frightening ease. These studies often looking at how
it was that people in 1930's Germany voted into power and then loved and
supported Hitler and co.

I think that today in the west we forget how powerful religion as a motivation
used to be. People REALLY believed in the bible, and angels, and heaven and hell
in a way that almost nobody does today. [or their religions equivalents]

Tens of thousands and more were killed in the sectarian disputes between
Catholics and protestants in England alone. The catholic powers in Europe
conspired to foment rebellion to overthrow the Protestant rule in England.
Claiming that all those deaths, all that violence, and more, would have happened
anyway if we had no religions... I can't take that claim seriously.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
... for determining morality?

In another thread I asked the question "What are the rules for determining morality?" For atheists, without using the bible or any religion, what guides and forms your morality?

it is a sad and dangerous person he or she that gets his/her morality from the bible.



morality comes from social norms. comes from reflection. comes from discussion with others.

it is hard to give an exact definition.
here is one try:
we propose norms that would maximize happiness for as many as possible. as we progress, we include more and more in the group we strive to protect (for lack of a better word).



in the beginning, the israelites proposed morals that mostly made israelite men happy. they only barely acknowledged women, children, slaves. they didn't care for foreigners at all. they considered for example that it is moral to care for a slave and not beat him excessively and called that "moral". that was the allowed maximum of happiness for a slave.

the christians waged crusades against muslims and called it moral.
the americans segregated their society and called that moral.




my point is that we must be flexible in our morality, be empathetic towards those who suffer.

not follow a deeply flawed compendium of thousands of years old writings, put together by a council of few old priests at Nicaea.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sure - they'd have to market the war some other way. But they still have the same human desires to control territory and resources. There are plenty of other rhetorical ways to justify a war in the absence of religion.

Nevertheless, when religion is available, it gets used to great effect. In fact, I believe almost all politicians are more religious than they would otherwise be specifically for political reasons ie they know that religion can help them politically, but this effect seems to be even stronger when there are political tensions, civil unrest or outright war. If you look around the world at the various trouble spots, you will see that although the causes of conflict may not always be religion, it almost always gets roped in as a political tool.

Originally posted by googlefudge
A lot of wars and violence are extensions of tribalism.

Religions encourage tribalism.

Atheism does not.


Look the only way to settle this is to go through the statistics in detail,
but I think any argument that says that religions are not responsible for
increased violence because "people would have found other excuses/reasons
for violen ...[text shortened]... more, would have happened
anyway if we had no religions... I can't take that claim seriously.

A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this: "I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." — Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.

“Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) was Charles Darwin’s cousin who amplified on one of the theory’s logical conclusions. He declared that the "science" of "eugenics" was the key to humanity’s problems: Put the weak, infirm, and aged to sleep. Adolf Hitler, an ardent evolutionist, used it successfully in World War II “ (Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1).

“Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a remarkable example of a man who fully adopted Darwinist principles. He wrote books declaring that the way to evolve was to have wars and kill the weaker races, in order to produce a "super race" (T. Walter Wallbank and Alastair M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2, 1949 ed., p. 274).

Darwin, in Origin of the Species, also said that this needed to happen. The writings of both men were read by German militarists and led to World War I. Hitler valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654024/posts

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this: "I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." — Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.

“ ...[text shortened]... ed both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654024/posts[/b]

"I cannot deny that discovering fire, and the progress it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"

-zahlanzi. 23'rd April 2014.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this: "I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." — Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.

“ ...[text shortened]... ed both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654024/posts[/b]

We have refuted this poisonous and idiotic lie many times before.

Go look up how we trashed you last time someone made this idiotic argument

Originally posted by googlefudge
A lot of wars and violence are extensions of tribalism.

Religions encourage tribalism.

Atheism does not.


Look the only way to settle this is to go through the statistics in detail,
but I think any argument that says that religions are not responsible for
increased violence because "people would have found other excuses/reasons
for violen ...[text shortened]... more, would have happened
anyway if we had no religions... I can't take that claim seriously.

OK, so you can't be arsed to back up your statements. Which is fine, but then don't ask other people to do it.

That's the price paid for laziness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless, when religion is available, it gets used to great effect. In fact, I believe almost all politicians are more religious than they would otherwise be specifically for political reasons ie they know that religion can help them politically, but this effect seems to be even stronger when there are political tensions, civil unrest or outright war. ...[text shortened]... uses of conflict may not always be religion, it almost always gets roped in as a political tool.

All this shows (if it shows anything at all) is that politicians exaggerate and/or lie to gain favor with the public, and the public are easily manipulated / overly credulous. Getting rid of religion does not strike at the core of the problem.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You've heard that by your friends evilutionists.

You don't know what science is. And you don't know what evolution is. You are just proud of your ignorance.

There is no point in arguing with R. J. He is plainly stuck on it, even if it hit him between the eyes. He won't listen.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
OK, so you can't be arsed to back up your statements. Which is fine, but then don't ask other people to do it.

That's the price paid for laziness.

No that's not it thankyou very much.

The only way to properly settle this is to gather statistics demonstrating that
in similar circumstances religious people/groups are more violent to a statistically
significant extent that atheists. If anyone has ever actually managed to do such
a study I am not aware of it and don't have access to the kind of literature that
might contain such a study.

There are studies that have been quoted here before that show that levels of religiosity
weakly correlate negatively with levels of crime and poverty...ect when compared to
otherwise similar countries/areas. However the data isn't sufficient to show if there is a
causal link, or which way that link goes.

In short it's not that I can't be arsed to provide the evidence required.
I can't provide it because I don't think it currently exists, and i certainly don't have
the time or resources to back it up.


However, When I study history I see vast numbers of horrendous crimes that have no
other justification other than religious differences. [There are plenty of crimes that
have other motivating factors of course but then nobody is saying otherwise]
And we know that peoples behaviours can be strongly altered by their society and
beliefs. So given that we know religions can be strongly divisive, and have traditionally
had many elements promoting violence, the most reasonable conclusion is that it
is more likely that religions are the CAUSE of and not just EXCUSE for violence than the
other way around. And that this violence wouldn't have just happened anyway if
religion had never existed.

The example I gave was of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the UK
as both groups jockeyed for power and control and families were torn apart as people
went one way or another. The sole reason for the existence of the two different groups
was religious. There was nothing else to differentiate them. There was no shortage of
resources to fight over.... They killed and persecuted each other because each side
was terrified of going to hell and they believed that you could only avoid that fate and
get to heaven by believing in, and promoting their particular brand of religion.

It's possible that this would have happened [or something equivalent] without religion,
but it's not probable.


Religion has strong mechanisms that promote conflict.

The weird thing would be if it made no difference, not the other way around.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sure - they'd have to market the war some other way. .

I agree with you .. but religion is a sure fire winner when it comes to "marketing" a War.

Even in modern times Leaders see fit to pit Islam v Christianity

wheeras the truth is both religions live side by side all over the world
(until someone tells them its wrong)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
All this shows (if it shows anything at all) is that politicians exaggerate and/or lie to gain favor with the public, and the public are easily manipulated / overly credulous. Getting rid of religion does not strike at the core of the problem.

I agree. However, I still maintain that theism seems to encourage a sense of group identity which exceeds almost all other such group identities with the notable exception of race. It is my claim that there would be less group violence if there was no religion. Similarly there would be less group violence if we all had the same skin colour and looked roughly similar.