To those who see religion as harmless...

[Avoidist]

No one can beat up Epicurus. Though whether he was a religious philosopher rather than a non-religious philosopher is up for easy debate.

He was not a moron. He has contributed more to modern society than any of you ever will, and he is remembered for that.

You can't state that with absolute certainty. Merely a very high probability.

And let us not forget our dear friends at Python who made a wise crack about his drinking tendencies and personal hygiene.

 

[[Matt]]

Descartes wasn't a moron.... he just didn't provide any adequate proof of the existence of a god

Some can, just as some religious people can. My question is whether you think fear of Divine Retribution in the next life would cause such people to be less likely to commit crimes? I'm mainly thinking non-lethal but still immoral crime here such as theft, fraud (maybe not explicitly mentioned much in the Bible but falls under general headings such as Love your neighbour etc.).

What do you expect me to say? 'Oh those are OK because Im an atheist??'

 

[Absinthe]

Well that's your take on 'terrible acts' aka murder/rape, but I said crime. What about fraud, theft etc.?

It may not be as severe, but it's the same thing. Empathy is enough for most people. How would you feel if you were robbed? What if you were caught? Not by God, but by the people you're stealing from, or an authority. By putting yourself in their shoes or assessing the risk, you're dissuaded. To clarify, I'm talking about serious theft or fraud here. A stolen buck here or there doesn't really matter.

I believe this because there are sound explanations for our ethical impulses in human evolution.

Some can, just as some religious people can. My question is whether you think fear of Divine Retribution in the next life would cause such people to be less likely to commit crimes? I'm mainly thinking non-lethal but still immoral crime here such as theft, fraud (maybe not exlicitly mentioned much in the Bible but falls under general headings such as Love your neighbour etc.).

Seeing as how most people on this planet are theists, it would seem to me that most people who commit immoral acts are religious.

So it's moot any way. Clearly not that big of a deterrent. And that's not even including people who do bad things because of their religion.

 

[Dan]

You can't state that with absolute certainty. Merely a very high probability.

No, I say that with certainty. The body of knowledge today is so large that one person can not make significant contributions in more than one field. It would be impossible for their to be another renaissance man such as Newton, or Descartes today because you now have to spend almost half your lifetime just to get to the cutting edge of knowledge. Calculus is already invented, you can't invent it again. The next step has to build on it. And with the global population growing exponentially and the larger body of knowledge accumulating with the integral of the population, individual contributions are shrinking rapidly.

 

[Absinthe]

Also, Descartes' proofs for God are contestable and are not wild cards up a theist's sleeve.

Both the ontological and trademark arguments he used are far from perfect. Descartes was indeed very important and contributed immensely to philosophy and math. But he was not always completely on the ball. His proofs are a testament to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_argument

 

[Operational]

I don't believe in God.

WOAH! I am not an Athiest.

Okay, well I can eliminate all the monotheistic religions and east Asian religions/philosophies since they have morals without divine beings which is what we are arguing about. So, erm, Hindu?

 

[Eejit]

Seeing as how most people on this planet are theists, it would seem to me that most people who commit immoral acts are religious.

So it's moot any way. Clearly not that big of a deterrent. And that's not even including people who do bad things because of their religion.

That doesn't even make sense. You'd have to show proportions, not absolute numbers.
Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, I was interested in what the people arguing about all this thought of it.

As if I couldn't have guessed.

 

[[Matt]]

Seeing as how most people on this planet are theists, it would seem to me that most people who commit immoral acts are religious.

Theres no connection between theism and morality.

 

[Absinthe]

70% of the inmates in France are Muslim.

The US is unique among wealthy democracies in its religious adherence, and unique in that it has high rates of homicide.

Of the 25 most dangerous cities, 76% are red states. 3 of the top 5 are in Texas.

The twelve states with the highest burglary rates are red. 24 of 29 with the highest theft rates are red.

With the highest rates of murder, 17 of the top 22 are red.

We all know that most (if not all) red states in America are so due to conservative Christian influence.

Most of the Middle East is undeniably religious, and immoral acts and atrocities are committed there on an almost daily basis.

Those are researched facts from Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This is not necessarily a condemnation of religion. I'm just saying that it is entirely reasonable to deduce that most people who commit crimes would identify themselves as religious. It has to be that way since theists take up the grand majority of the planet. This is not to say that theists are inherently more corrupt than atheists, just that when it comes down to the bottom of it, God isn't that big a factor in a lot of self-professed believers.

 

[Eejit]

This is not a condemnation of religion, really. I'm just saying that it is entirely reasonable to deduce that most people who commit crimes would identify themselves as religious. It has to be that way since theists take up the grand majority of the planet.

What I'm saying is that's meaningless.
It's like saying that >90% of people in jail in Russia are Russian... That doesn't mean Russians are all criminals (though we all know that they are ofc )

 

[Absinthe]

What I'm saying is that's meaningless.
It's like saying that >90% of people in jail in Russia are Russian... That doesn't mean Russians are all criminals (though we all know that they are ofc )

It's not meaningless. You've just forgotten what this is about.

You said religion is, at the very least, a good deterrent from immoral behavior and crime. I am showing that it clearly is not. Theists aren't any less likely to commit crimes than the godless are.

If religion keeps people's behavior in line, then why is this not reflected in most statistics?

 

[[Matt]]

70% of the inmates in France are Muslim.

The US is unique among wealthy democracies in its religious adherence, and unique in that it has high rates of homicide.

Of the 25 most dangerous cities, 76% are red states. 3 of the top 5 are in Texas.

The twelve states with the highest burglary rates are red. 24 of 29 with the highest theft rates are red.

With the highest rates of murder, 17 of the top 22 are red.

We all know that most (if not all) red states in America are so due to conservative Christian influence.

Most of the Middle East is undeniably religious, and immoral acts and atrocities are committed there on an almost daily basis.

Those are researched facts from Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This is not necessarily a condemnation of religion. I'm just saying that it is entirely reasonable to deduce that most people who commit crimes would identify themselves as religious. It has to be that way since theists take up the grand majority of the planet. This is not to say that theists are inherently more corrupt than atheists, just that when it comes down to the bottom of it, God isn't that big a factor in a lot of self-professed believers.

Those facts merely give trivial evidence that religious people are no more moral than non religious people and that morals are independent of ones belief system. Theres certainly no basis in any claim that religious people are less moral than non religious people.

 

[Warbie]

Those facts merely give trivial evidence that religious people are no more moral than non religious people and that morals are independent of ones belief system. Theres certainly no basis in any claim that religious people are less moral than non religious people.

Isn't that all he was saying?

 

[Druckles]

No they wouldn't. He was a great mathmetician, sure, but he couldn't philosiphize for hell.

Renes Descartes made significant contributions to many realms of mathematics and physics:
He set the basis of calculus
He invented cartesian coordinates
He founded analytic geometry
He came up with the idea of the imaginary number i
He discovered the principle of conservation of momentum
He discovered the law of refraction
He also created exponential notation (something Druckles could brush up on)

He was not a moron. He has contributed more to modern society than any of you ever will, and he is remembered for that.

/facepalm

You ignored my post.

 

[[Matt]]

Isn't that all he was saying?

Its all that Im saying whilst his last 2 posts seems to give the opinion that he believes religious people are less moral than those who are not,

 

[Seagull]

I don't believe in a god based on having no evidence.

I don't like religion based on it's capability to be twisted any sort of way so it can justify almost anything. I also don't like it when people are raised with it, as it makes them extremely biased towards anything that could be contradicting their beliefs - letting people be raised without religion, then, once they're old enough to actually understand and think about what they're reading/hearing, let them go into it if they want.

 

[Dan]

/facepalm
You ignored my post.

I will refresh your memory

Oh... right.
Well Descartes was a moron and his arguments didn't work. I'd have gone for Aquinas if you wanted a religious philosopher.

That takes a lotta nerve to say [referring to moron comment]. Any modern scientist or mathematician worth their salt would disagree with you on that one.

No they wouldn't. He was a great mathmetician, sure, but he couldn't philosiphize for hell.

Renes Descartes made significant contributions to many realms of mathematics and physics:
He set the basis of calculus
He invented cartesian coordinates
He founded analytic geometry
He came up with the idea of the imaginary number i
He discovered the principle of conservation of momentum
He discovered the law of refraction
He also created exponential notation (something Druckles could brush up on)

He was not a moron. He has contributed more to modern society than any of you ever will, and he is remembered for that.

You never retracted your statement that he was a moron. With Descartes being dead, I had to stand up for his good name.
Stop with the facepalm.

 

[Cheomesh]

Okay, well I can eliminate all the monotheistic religions and east Asian religions/philosophies since they have morals without divine beings which is what we are arguing about. So, erm, Hindu?

You forgot Shinto :|

Hm, are the spirits a divine being?

And the answer is Germanic Pagan.

I don't like religion based on it's capability to be twisted any sort of way so it can justify almost anything. I also don't like it when people are raised with it, as it makes them extremely biased towards anything that could be contradicting their beliefs - letting people be raised without religion, then, once they're old enough to actually understand and think about what they're reading/hearing, let them go into it if they want.

You can twist anything to justify almost anything. This is the nature of life!





I have a question for you all who want to shove Atheism down our throats:
What do you want? Did a priest touch you in the wrong spot or something? What does it matter to you if I am the way I am with or without a religion? Does it offend you that I can freely give my life defending someone because I believe there is something to be gained? Biologically, I should let someone being attacked or otherwise assaulted be because if I die I cannot pass on my genes. What do you people want?

 

[Eejit]

It's not meaningless. You've just forgotten what this is about.

You said religion is, at the very least, a good deterrent from immoral behavior and crime. I am showing that it clearly is not. Theists aren't any less likely to commit crimes than the godless are.

If religion keeps people's behavior in line, then why is this not reflected in most statistics?

But you didn't show that. You said that the majority of people believe in religion, and that the majority of people in jail believe in religion. 'Majority' isn't exactly an informative statistic...

 

[Dan]

It is greatly offensive to them when someone has differing, opinions, beliefs, or thoughts.

 

[Absinthe]

Those facts merely give trivial evidence that religious people are no more moral than non religious people and that morals are independent of ones belief system. Theres certainly no basis in any claim that religious people are less moral than non religious people.

Like... are you even reading my posts?

 

[[Matt]]

Like... are you even reading my posts?

Yes and you're forming an opinion based on highly insufficient evidence...

 

[Acepilotf14]

RULE #87: DO NOT MAKE THREADS EVEN REFERENCING TO RELIGON, OR IT WILL BECOME A TOTAL FLAMEFEST.
kthxbie

 

[Solaris]

Religion and Reason.

It is disheartening to read through this thread seeing people using arguments that have consistently been invalidated and disproved countless times on these forums alone.

Cheomesh argues that we need religion becuase we derive our ethics from it, without religion we would not be ethical.

All we really need to counter this argument is the simple fact that so many of us are atheists from atheist upbringing and still live moral lives. We don't hurt people becuase it makes us feel bad seeing other human being suffer, not becuase it was carved in stone thousands of years ago.

Faced with this argument he appears to try and attribute the developments of ethics to religious foundations, whilst I have no doubt our sense of right and wrong would exist without any historical religious influence on our society, this is an academic point, and not one that is relevant to the debate. Whether we got ethics from religion originally (Which seems rather a bizarre claim, one only has to read the Old testament to see this.) or not is irrelevant, becuase the fact that so many of us are atheists and ethical, shows we no longer need religion to be ethical, at the very least.

It is indeed important that people stand up to defend the names of past intellectual giants, I respect Dan for doing that. Not to say they are infallible however.

I really must praise Absinthe for his role in this discussion, your arguments are well constructed and enlightening.

 

[Druckles]

All we really need to counter this argument is the simple fact that so many of us are atheists from atheist upbringing and still live moral lives. We don't hurt people becuase it makes us feel bad seeing other human being suffer, not becuase it was carved in stone thousands of years ago.

But then you'd be silly, now, wouldn't you?

Because the society you live in developed from a religious background. So you could say the rules and ethics behind stem from religion

 

[[Matt]]

But then you'd be silly, now, wouldn't you?

Because the society you live in developed from a religious background. So you could say the rules and ethics behind stem from religion

They had a later influence but morals and ethics certainly did not originate from religion.

 

[Druckles]

Never said they did. Said his argument was very flawed.

Omg! I got drawn into it! And I wasn't going to :angry:

Religion has been around a very long time. It's not even possible to put a date on it. So it's hard to make that kind of assumption anyway.

Personally I think that everyone has some ethics in their heads, some more than others. Kind've built in similar to Chomsky's language acquisition (which I don't agree with, coincidentally). It was this which formed religion.
That's not to say I don't think religion didn't help a great deal. What religion did was bring it all together, by laying down laws that people can't question (because they came from a divine power), hence paving the way forth for future morals.

Sure, religion's crap when it comes to actual morals, but I think it was it which really made ethics what they are today. Someone mentioned stoning before as being unethical. Of course the morals that were once then are not the same as the ones we have now. People back then thought those morals were ethical, just like some people believe Capital punishment is ethical. Even the ethics themselves are subjective. But the idea behind them stays the same. If you don't conform to our morals, you get punished/die. In much the same way as modern society.

 

[Krynn72]

Those facts merely give trivial evidence that religious people are no more moral than non religious people and that morals are independent of ones belief system. Theres certainly no basis in any claim that religious people are less moral than non religious people.

Its all that Im saying whilst his last 2 posts seems to give the opinion that he believes religious people are less moral than those who are not,

You said religion is, at the very least, a good deterrent from immoral behavior and crime. I am showing that it clearly is not. Theists aren't any less likely to commit crimes than the godless are.

If religion keeps people's behavior in line, then why is this not reflected in most statistics?

Hes debating the statement someone made that Religion is a "deterrent" of crime.

 

[Solaris]

But then you'd be silly, now, wouldn't you?

Because the society you live in developed from a religious background. So you could say the rules and ethics behind stem from religion

Yes that's a possibility. You fail to recognise my central point: Regardless of whether morals have developed becuase of our religious background, I lead an entirely secular life and I am ethical, ergo, I don't need religion to be ethical.

 

[Stigmata]

I have a question for you all who want to shove Atheism down our throats:
What do you want? Did a priest touch you in the wrong spot or something? What does it matter to you if I am the way I am with or without a religion? Does it offend you that I can freely give my life defending someone because I believe there is something to be gained? Biologically, I should let someone being attacked or otherwise assaulted be because if I die I cannot pass on my genes. What do you people want?

We kind of used the entire ****ing thread to explain to you why we think religion is completely useless and incredibly damaging, which should really be a good enough reason for you to not defend it or align yourself with its doctrine.

And I don't know why you think we're offended that you... want to help others. That's not the point. I'm horribly atheist and anti-religion, and I quite enjoy helping other people not get killed. I don't know what you're trying to pull with these bullshit statements.

Oh, and thanks for not responding to my earlier comments about four pages back. I guess I can assume that I was right, since you so conveniently forgot about them and went on to attack other people, right?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

That's a bit of an unfair generalisation.

I suppose it is, but what I meant was why some religious people do hate vaccinations. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Absinthe]

Yes and you're forming an opinion based on highly insufficient evidence...

...

Okay, I'm going to ask you again.

Are you reading my posts?

 

[Krynn72]

I think there are about three people in this thread who are actually reading posts. Everyone's saying the same god damn thing, ignoring any post that refutes, provides evidence, or ask questions.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, this is frustrating as hell. Debating != repeating yourself until the other person gives up.

Seriously, I thought everyone learned how to do this in grade school.

 

[delusional]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Krynn72]

That is awesome. I think this thread should change topics, and we should now discuss what degree of awesome Samuel L. Jackson is.

 

[Seppo]

Extremely awesome.

Next topic?

 

[Eejit]

I think Sir Jackson's awesomeness cannot be quantified. At least, not by humans.





Only by God! Who exists!

Fight!

 

[Druckles]

Yes that's a possibility. You fail to recognise my central point: Regardless of whether morals have developed becuase of our religious background, I lead an entirely secular life and I am ethical, ergo, I don't need religion to be ethical.

... Our entire society is based off religion

 

[Absinthe]

Devil's advocate?