- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnother important feature of religions is that they are irrational and non-negotiable.
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.
If your 'morality' is handed down to you by command of god, then you have
no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances or encountering a group
with different morality from yours. [or anything else 'divinely commanded']
The fact that religions inspire and require blind devotion and obedience it
makes people much less likely or able to negotiate or compromise.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudge"Weak correlation" - is that all you've got?
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 o ...[text shortened]... romote conflict.
The weird thing would be if it made no difference, not the other way around.
Even with a stronger correlation - correlation, as we know, doesn't equal causation.
If the evidence required to make your case does not exist - shouldn't that temper your enthusiasm a bit?
Seems religious people aren't the only ones willing to claim things on insufficient evidence.
-----
Religion has both mechanisms that promote strife, and mechanisms that promote peace. The Bible runs the gamut from "death to the Canaanites, every one, even women and children! Except for their young women, whom you may keep as sex slaves" to "do good to those that hate you; feed the sick, give to the poor, visit the imprisoned."
Those who are peacefully inclined focus on the latter verses. The war-like prefer the former. It plays to the nature that already exists inside the person.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think we're fighting an evolved 'local group' tendency that served us well in the past, but now tends to be too confining. Awareness of the larger group is motivated by reason alone. There is always the need to fight one's inner instinct to exclude people outside the local group.
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.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn a strange way, you look for your own reflection in the mirror when you look at religion. You are intractable and uncompromising in your skepticism, so you notice the religious people with the same qualities.
Another important feature of religions is that they are irrational and non-negotiable.
If your 'morality' is handed down to you by command of god, then you have
no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances or encountering a group
with different morality from yours. [or anything else 'divinely commanded']
The fact that religions inspire an ...[text shortened]... nd devotion and obedience it
makes people much less likely or able to negotiate or compromise.
There are religions that allow for dissent. Rabbis in Judaism argue over different interpretations of the Torah - and this is officially encouraged. Buddhists are not even theists in the Western sense. There is also a comparatively silent group of moderate Christians that accept things like the Theory of Evolution and realize that, while they may believe God does not err, man does, including their human religious leaders.
24 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI fully agree. But I think religion sometimes plays on this 'local group' tendency for its own self promotion. My original point was that atheists do not tend to go around as a group promoting atheism at the expense of religious groups in a violent manner, whereas some religious people do. The 'us vs them' mentality is, I believe, more common amongst religious people (because religion provides a clear 'us' and 'them' ) .
I think we're fighting an evolved 'local group' tendency that served us well in the past, but now tends to be too confining. Awareness of the larger group is motivated by reason alone. There is always the need to fight one's inner instinct to exclude people outside the local group.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitDid you not read the part where I specifically stated that the studies showing a weak
"Weak correlation" - is that all you've got?
Even with a stronger correlation - correlation, as we know, doesn't equal causation.
If the evidence required to make your case does not exist - shouldn't that temper your enthusiasm a bit?
Seems religious people aren't the only ones willing to claim things on insufficient evidence.
-----
Religi ...[text shortened]... s. The war-like prefer the former. It plays to the nature that already exists inside the person.
negative correlation didn't prove causation or the direction of that causation?
What I said and I will say it again is that to fully isolate the effect requires properly
conducted statistical surveys that I do not believe have been done.
That doesn't mean I have no evidence, or that I cited no evidence.
So before you accuse me of anything please read my fricking posts because this is getting
irritating and I expect better from you.
I can point you to thousands of years worth of sectarian violence where there was no
substantial motivation for the violence OTHER than religion.
GIVEN that we KNOW that human behaviour and moral norms are flexible and open to being
altered. And given that religion promotes tribalism and is inherently divisive.
It would seem unlikely that the aforementioned violence would have occurred if there was
no religion to drive it.
There are all kinds of motivations for violence. religion is one of them.
If religion had never existed, what makes you think that the other causes would expand out
to fill that gap and make up for the violence that religion would have caused if it had
existed?
In claiming that religion makes no difference while accepting that religion can be a cause of
violence you are requiring that if religion were removed that the other potential causes of
violence would expand to fill the gap. i see no evidence of this or reason to suppose that this
would be the case.
In fact the fact that worldwide violence has massively decreased over the last century along
with a corresponding drop in religiosity [and religious fundamentalism] suggests that in fact
humans are more than capable of getting along without huge levels of violence and that
removing causes of violence decreases levels of violence.
I cannot prove this. However this seems more reasonable and makes more sense than the alternative.
I thus find on balance that it is more likely than not that religion causes violence and strife and
that removing or weakening it reduces the same.
You seem to be basing your view on the highly tamed and moderated western religious of today.
Try looking at the raw and unrestrained religious of the middle ages and get back to me.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitExceptions do not [in this context] disprove the rule.
In a strange way, you look for your own reflection in the mirror when you look at religion. You are intractable and uncompromising in your skepticism, so you notice the religious people with the same qualities.
There are religions that allow for dissent. Rabbis in Judaism argue over different interpretations of the Torah - and this is officially encou ...[text shortened]... hat, while they may believe God does not err, man does, including their human religious leaders.
I am talking about the effects of the religion/s. Not individual religious people.
An analogy is Stochastic Resonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance
Where you can detect a weak signal by adding random noise.
In this case the random noise is people's natural variability.
And the signal [weak or otherwise] is the influence of religion.
Lets say that to move someone to violence requires pushing them past a certain threshold.
Everyone starts out at varying distances from that threshold and varying circumstances
move them closer or farther away from it. Those pushed over it have been pushed into
committing acts of violence.
My contention would be that the nature of religion, [some religions more than others]
pushes everyone a bit [or a lot] closer to the threshold.
Now it takes less to push people over the edge and thus more people are pushed over
the edge and more violence ensues.
By making people less rational, more tribal, and hampering moral discussion, religion
tips the balance.
You still get however people with a great range of attitudes and many will still be very peaceful.
This doesn't mean that the religion/s are not having an overall negative impact.
And as I said previously, based on known mechanisms for altering human behaviour for the
worse. Which are possessed by many/all religions to varying degrees. And the evidence of
historical [and present day come to that] violence and persecution with no other significant
or known basis OTHER than religion.
It would be much more surprising if religions NET impact wasn't highly negative.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitI take no issue with this.
I think we're fighting an evolved 'local group' tendency that served us well in the past, but now tends to be too confining. Awareness of the larger group is motivated by reason alone. There is always the need to fight one's inner instinct to exclude people outside the local group.
That doesn't mean that religions are not also an influencing factor in overall violence levels.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI do not claim you produced no evidence. Only that the presented evidence so far is not sufficient (which you seem to have conceded several posts ago.)
Did you not read the part where I specifically stated that the studies showing a weak
negative correlation didn't prove causation or the direction of that causation?
What I said and I will say it again is that to fully isolate the effect requires properly
conducted statistical surveys that I do not believe have been done.
That doesn't mean I ...[text shortened]... day.
Try looking at the raw and unrestrained religious of the middle ages and get back to me.
I fully agree that religion can be the main motivator behind some violence. It provides an excellent reason to fight for those looking for a fight.
I am not claiming that 'religion makes no difference' when it comes to violence. That is not accurate. I am claiming that, even with religion out of the picture, there can, and has, been plenty of violence, because the people with the violent natures remain (it was them that gave rise to the darker writings of religion in the first place, and it inspires their like-minded descendants.)
The qualifier "fundamentalism" makes a big difference. I think religion (rightfully) takes heat for the strife it has caused, but does not get very much credit for the good it inspires (usually done by people who aren't so fundamentalist about the violent parts of their holy books.)
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitI for one am fully aware that religious organisations and religious people are responsible for much good. In my home country Zambia, there are a lot of schools and hospitals run by religious organisations (most of them by the Catholic Church). I myself was taught in a Catholic run school by Catholic brothers from Ireland.
The qualifier "fundamentalism" makes a big difference. I think religion (rightfully) takes heat for the strife it has caused, but does not get very much credit for the good it inspires (usually done by people who aren't so fundamentalist about the violent parts of their holy books.)
However, if you can make the argument that violent people will look for violence religion or not, then surely one could make the counter argument that giving people will be giving, religion or not? And the downside of religion is that people often put a lot of effort into what they think of as giving and being good, when in fact it is going into promoting their religion.
25 Apr 14
GoogleFudge Typed
---------------------------
However, speaking generally, I think you need to start by asking what morality
actually is. And the best description I know of is Sam Harris' where he describes
morality as [and I am paraphrasing] a system for determining what behaviours,
courses of action, and laws, produce a society that best maximises the wellbeing of
it's members.
-----------------------
Well, the bottom line is that in all the societies of this world, no one society has followed what maximized the well-being of its members. That includes Christians and Atheists.
That in itself shows that we need the One who created us! We can't even always do right towards man. What makes us think that we can always do right to God? God doesn't need us. We need God!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointUm, actually no, it shows nothing of the kind.
GoogleFudge Typed
---------------------------
However, speaking generally, I think you need to start by asking what morality
actually is. And the best description I know of is Sam Harris' where he describes
morality as [and I am paraphrasing] a system for determining what behaviours,
courses of action, and laws, produce a society that best maximises ...[text shortened]... an. What makes us think that we can always do right to God? God doesn't need us. We need God!
Could you please give the logical argument you think leads to that conclusion from that premise...
Because I cannot comprehend how it is you made that leap.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes you could, and yes, I would also say that (that giving people will still give in lieu of religion).
I for one am fully aware that religious organisations and religious people are responsible for much good. In my home country Zambia, there are a lot of schools and hospitals run by religious organisations (most of them by the Catholic Church). I myself was taught in a Catholic run school by Catholic brothers from Ireland.
However, if you can make the arg ...[text shortened]... they think of as giving and being good, when in fact it is going into promoting their religion.
Overall, I think people realizing they can live morally good lives and have peaceful, healthy societies without religion is a good thing for humanity. But I just can't get on board with the whole 'religion is the cause of most war and death in the world' bandwagon. Yes, religion has caused its share of atrocities. But it's far from the only cause.
I guess that's what I don't like about the whole 'religion causes more wars than anything else' statement. The focus it takes off the 'else's, some of which are major causes in their own right.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, what about the Soviet Union? Their official religious or non-religious doctrine was atheism and they persecuted many Christians.
I fully agree. But I think religion sometimes plays on this 'local group' tendency for its own self promotion. My original point was that atheists do not tend to go around as a group promoting atheism at the expense of religious groups in a violent manner, whereas some religious people do. The 'us vs them' mentality is, I believe, more common amongst religious people (because religion provides a clear 'us' and 'them' ) .
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by Great King RatGKR, sorry it took me awhile, but I wanted to respond to you...
The vast majority doesn't "understand", as you put it. Further, it is not a choice to (not) believe in a certain god. This has been mentioned here time and time again, but it's part of the religious indoctrination to make people believe that believing is a choice.
All of this is moot however, because god (being omnipotent) could easily fix this and ...[text shortened]... and poems and metaphors or would I be as clear and upfront about it as possible? What about you?
The vast majority doesn't "understand", as you put it. Further, it is not a choice to (not) believe in a certain god. This has been mentioned here time and time again, but it's part of the religious indoctrination to make people believe that believing is a choice
Much debate has taken place over many hundreds of years (and more) to be sure about God, believing in God, where is God, and why doesn't he make himself known. The truth is, God has made himself known we just choose to ignore him, and attribute that which rightly belongs to him and is of him... to something else. The evidence of God resides in his creation of the Cosmos, the planets, galaxy's, etc. all speak to his handy work. How magnificent it is to look into the night time sky and take in all that is seen, to look and see into time, it is made by him.
The evidence of God resides in his creation of the earth. All the different plant species, insects, animals and people are truly amazing, only through an intelligent means has it come about, God. The different characteristics of animal and plant life are by design, it is living art work.
The Bible tells us that God has created man in his image.
Genesis 1:27
English Standard Version (ESV)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
When you look into the mirror every morning, you are looking at the image of God, you are looking at the evidence of the existence of God; you are not by chance, a fluke, you and I are by design. Believing in God... it is not about religious indoctrination, choosing not to believe in him and what he has created is the choice.
All of this is moot however, because god (being omnipotent) could easily fix this and if love and peace is indeed his most important rule then that is exactly what he should do.
But God has easily fixed, he has created me and you and everybody else, if we would just accept who we are a difference would be made in this world. A lyric from a current christian song I think says it all...
Jason Gray
With Every Act Of Love
God put a million, million doors in the world
For his love to walk through
One of those doors is you
We just need to take hold of it.
He should fix this not by some vague way like he did before (send son, let him die, assume that son will be known all over the world, assume the son will be regarded as a true son of God all over the world, assume His words will be written down exactly as intended, assume no mistakes will be made intranslations, etc etc etc) but by being absolutely clear about it.
The problem that people have is everyone has a different way of thinking that God should do things to fix things. He has one way, and that is through Jesus Christ... we just do not want to accept that (for those that don't believe), we just want to complain.
Did God assume...
1) "that son will be known all over the world"
2) "assume the son will be regarded as a true son of God all over the world"
3) "assume His words will be written down exactly as intended"
4) "assume no mistakes will be made intranslations"
... absolutely not! He knew that all these things would come to pass and they have. They have! We need to have the blinders lifted from our eyes to see it, and that is God's spirit that does that work. God calls us, everyone of us, we just need to respond to him.
If I was a scientist and I knew for sure a large earthquake was imminent would I warn the people with vague psalms and poems and metaphors or would I be as clear and upfront about it as possible? What about you?Well God has written the story, it is in the Bible, the problem is we don't want to hear it... so is it God's fault we don't head the warnings or embrace his love? Don't think so. We have a choice to make.