Religion

[The Seer of Shadows]

But even if we play make-believe and say religion is the main cause of deaths, well good.  Maybe no one else has noticed but the worldwide population is absolutely out of control.  We cure diseases constantly and are always finding new ways to prolong life.  We NEED something to kill us, and unfortunately natural disasters just aren't happening quickly enough.

I like where this is going.  Let's discuss.  So what are we gonna do about it?  Find the Black Materia?

[DLPB_]

Birth control works better....

[xLostWingx]

Does it?  Maybe for like...idk, 800,000,000 of us.  But what about the billions without access to birth control?  While I agree with the idea that the earth is becoing overpopulated, I don't think going on a "diet" is going to make it better.  We need to hit the Reset button.  It is funny though...any one of us could just have easily come into existence as a fucking beetle, or an aboriginee (sp?).  The industrialized human perspective is in the minority on this planet.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Had she been Islamic she would have been a suicide bomber.  Don't let em read the Koran, they may learn too much.  Mein kampf has some serious competition!

I read somewhere that someone did a survey of the two books and found that the Koran had more antisemitism than Mein Kampf, so it's possible that Mein Kampf has lost the battle.

Mind you, it was the kind of study that one has to take with a pinch of salt.

More people are killed daily by mindless murder and greed than ANY religious beliefs.  People are going to kill each other no matter the reason.

It doesn't matter if religion is not the only or even the biggest cause of the killing around the world. It's one of the major ones, and that's enough reason to oppose it.

But even if we play make-believe and say religion is the main cause of deaths, well good.  Maybe no one else has noticed but the worldwide population is absolutely out of control.  We cure diseases constantly and are always finding new ways to prolong life.  We NEED something to kill us, and unfortunately natural disasters just aren't happening quickly enough.

As other people have said, condoms can do something about overpopulation too. In Russia, abortions have also had a big effect on birth rate (too big, actually).

Now then, a lot of people in the poorest, most overpopulated parts of the world don't use condoms. I can't really think of why they wouldn't...oh wait! Their priests and pastors and imams tell them not to!

If you look around the world, there's a startling correlation between a country's birthrate and its religiosity. Europe and east Asia have the lowest birth rates, and these places tend not to be very religious. Africa and south Asia have the highest birth rates, and they're possibly the most religious places. Obviously there are probably of lot of factors causing this*, but religious edicts against condoms and in favour of big families must be an influence. And it isn't just Catholicism that forbids it; lots of religious leaders around the world have a problem with birth control.

Don't you think its profoundly evil to tell impoverishes, scared, illiterate people who believe your every word and who live in countries where AIDS and starvation are rife, that birth control is a sin and that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV? And isn't it profoundly hypocritical to make patently absurd claims about HIV and then preach about "thou shalt not bear false witness"?

*I'm saying this for insurance, since experience in these debates tells me that someone is going to accuse me of saying that religion is the only factor affecting birth rate. One of the most amusing things about religious debates is that you can tell someone until you're blue in the face that you don't believe that x, but they'll still say that you believe x and try to build a counter-argument around this claim. It's impossible to stop people from doing this, but you can have a good laugh when they do.

[Jaitsu]

i agree overpopulation is a serious issue that needs to be adressed, but that gives no one, be it a man, a god, or animal, the right to take anothers life.

[DLPB_]

I read somewhere that someone did a survey of the two books and found that the Koran had more antisemitism than Mein Kampf, so it's possible that Mein Kampf has lost the battle.

Mind you, it was the kind of study that one has to take with a pinch of salt.

No that's the laugh, it almost certainly IS true

But history has shown that appeasement only brings temporary peace. By tip-toeing around crazy beliefs, you only encourage them.

This is also sadly true...  The more you appease the worse it gets until one day it is too late to do something with minimal casualties.  Many before WW2, including Churchill said to attack Hitler long before he was able to amass a huge army and had the planning for war.  But few listened.  The public didn't want another war, and the politicians decided instead to appease.

All that did was cost us 50 million lives.  Well done to the appeasers.  Today Islam is the main issue, and is not too different to Nazism (hate, war mongering, antisemitism, world dominance) ... everyone is running around appeasing it.  Despite insurmountable evidence that it creates death and war and intolerance and that most Islamic countries are far from democracies, people bury their heads in the sand.

Now we have the "religion of peace" propaganda, "you are racist", "every religion has a few nutters".

And when push comes to shove, we will have to confront this ideology head on and it will be too late to do it relatively peacefully I am afraid.  Appeasement is the language of a fool.

[Mako]

It doesn't matter if religion is not the only or even the biggest cause of the killing around the world. It's one of the major ones, and that's enough reason to oppose it.

What we are trying to get through to you Kudistos is that, it does not matter. If religion was wiped out people would still kill,
in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.


You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist.


I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.

[Cupcake]

What we are trying to get through to you Kudistos is that, it does not matter. If religion was wiped out people would still kill,
in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.


You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist.


I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.

But you shouldn't need religion to tell you to help those in need.  That should be something one is willing to do on their own, without the threat of a lake of fire.  I also thought we established that Buddhism was a different situation, as it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

[Kudistos Megistos]

in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.

You can indeed say with certainty that you believe that.

It still won't be true.

You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist.


I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.

The claim that religious people are more charitable comes up very often, but I have a hard time believing it. I haven't personally noticed religious people being any more charitable than non-religious people, and it must be noted that atheists tend not to organise themselves around atheist causes in the same way that religious people do.

Christians who set up a charity will generally be very keen to point out that their religious belief is what caused them to set up a charity and will often declare their charity to be a religious one. Atheists, for obvious reasons, will not generally assert that their charitability is motivated by their stance of whether or not God exists and will rarely organise a charity around their lack of religion. You won't see any atheist charities because few atheists see charity as an atheist thing; they see it as something that should be open to all.

Actually I can't help but wonder whether atheists (or rather, secularists) are better charity workers. It's certainly the case that most of the biggest charitable or humanitarian organisations around the world are secular. Even the Red Cross, despite its name, is a secular organisation. Furthermore, secular charities tend not to have ulterior, proselytising, motives. They also tend to be more equal in their distribution of aid; even the Salvation Army, an otherwise highly admirable organisation, has had controversies regarding discrimination against homosexuals.

There might be an argument, although there are many counter-arguments, that a small amount of charity workers and donors might be motivated by some religious belief (although, as I said, the biggest organisations tend to be secular and America's biggest philanthropist, though not an atheist, disliked organised religion), but people without religious motives might just do a better job of it.

EDIT:

I just remembered: there seems to be an astonishing correlation in the Western world between the amount of aid given relative to a country's population and the irreligion of its population. Although Americans tend to be at least as wealthy, if not wealthier, Western Europeans seem to give more aid money, especially the ones from the least religious countries.

[xLostWingx]

Many facts.  There could be millions of them shot back and forth.  Clearly the answer is we don't know what the world would be like without religion because it is such a major influence.  If minor events can change the world in drastic ways, surely something as major as religion is responsible for so much that we can't create any hypothetical reigion-free world with any accuracy.  *edit, It's not like it would be the same world we live in, simply without religion.

Without religion what other reasons would arrise to murder each other.  In the absence of religion, many people who would otherwise not murder, would start to.  Too many factors to accurately predict.  Maybe, as some seem to believe, we would have a wonderful world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.  Or, we could have a world with more powerful and more oppressive empires than ever.  Maybe everything would be pretty much the same.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Many facts.  There could be millions of them shot back and forth.  Clearly the answer is we don't know

That's a very "high school history essay" answer.

We can't know the answer to certain questions (at least not without some kind of Laplace's demon device), but some answers to these questions are more firmly supported by the evidence than others.

Without religion what other reasons would arrise to murder each other.

Bagels

They will be the motive and the weapon in all murders once religion has been eliminated.

In the absence of religion, many people who would otherwise not murder, would start to.

How many? And why do you believe this? A positive correlation between religiosity and violence can be seen across the world, even when you account for income.

Maybe it's a co-incidence that the most religious countries within various income brackets tend to have the most psychopathic killers running around, whereas the most secular ones have the lowest murder rates? (this is a general correlation, I hope no-one accuses me of saying that it's a perfect one).

Maybe, as some seem to believe, we would have a wonderful world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.

Can you tell me who has said that? I have never, in my whole life, heard anyone say that or anything approaching it.

Am I supposed to have said it?

Should I stop bothering to respond to what people actually say and instead respond to what I wish they had said?

[Mako]

You can indeed say with certainty that you believe that.

It still won't be true.

How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.

The claim that religious people are more charitable comes up very often

That's cause it's highly debatable.

I haven't personally noticed religious people being any more charitable than non-religious people

This is highly irregular :/.

as I said, the biggest organisations tend to be secular

This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.

Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.

Take this group giftofhope even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.

But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.

[Kudistos Megistos]

How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.

That's cause it's highly debatable.
This is highly irregular :/.

This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.

Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.

Take this group giftofhope even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.

But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.

Yes, but there's one thing you've forgotten.

America is crazy!

Really, you can't assume that what happens in the US is of any relevance to a debate about a global issue . I sometimes think that the US doesn't exist and that the concept of it was created by the government and the media to troll us. A place like that can't exist, surely? Where you have schoolchildren driving around in cars but you can't drink until you're 21? Where little kids are trusted with guns but adults aren't even allowed to play poker? Where Two And A Half Men is classified as "comedy"? Such a place can't exist; it must be a bad joke!

But seriously, the situation you described is very unusual and, I suspect, unique to the US.
People from other developed countries seem to be fully capable of helping their fellow man without being motivated by the reward of heaven.

[Mako]

Bah, what is this "other" you speak of? Everybody knows there is nothing beyond the great wall

[xLostWingx]

Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand. 
Bob: How do you know? 
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim:  The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
---------------------------
Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist?  Correlation does not indicate causation.  Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.

Bagels.  Why not?  Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world.  Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man.  Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed.  Why would you pretend like you do/could?

Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.''  But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world.  That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.

I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it.  I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it.  You can't say that.  If you do, it doesn't mean anything.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand. 
Bob: How do you know? 
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim:  The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.

And, by Occam's razor, Jim's assumption would be quite reasonable. It would be for Bob to prove that there are other kinds of sand.

Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist?  Correlation does not indicate causation.  Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing "look over there".

Bagels.  Why not?  Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world.  Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man.  Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed.  Why would you pretend like you do/could?

The mistake you make, and you're not the first one to make it (in fact, I think I've picked you up on this before) is that you create a false dichotomy between things that are known and things that are just wild guesses with no evidence at all. This is absurd. There are crazy conjectures, and there are things that, whilst not proven, are sensible to assume. If we can't be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, does that mean the assumption that it will is just as baseless as the assumption that it won't?

If you think that both assumptions are equally baseless, then you have just reduced your argument to absurdity.

Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.''  But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world.

And do you disagree with this?

Would you like to argue that AIDS would be as rampant if pastors had not told their sheep that condoms are useless, or that they actually cause AIDS? Do you think that The elimination of polio would have been so fraught with trouble if imams hadn't told their followers that the vaccines were part of a Western plot and forbidden their use?

And would you disagree that the hundreds of millions of women who have had their clitorises cut off were made miserable? What about those who are made subservient to and property of their husbands, because that is God's will? Do you think gay people in countries where the Abrahamic religions still drive lawmaking are happy? And what about people who live in countries that have been torn apart by religious conflict? In Iraq, in Sudan, in Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka and in the former Yugoslav states? In all the other countries that I can't think of at the moment? Do you think the families of the millions of people who died in the partition of India, a partition designed to create separate Hindu and Muslim states?

If you don't disagree, then why are you questioning my statement?

That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.

You must take responsibility for your actions.

I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it.  I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it.  You can't say that.  If you do, it doesn't mean anything.

When did I say that I "know"? There you go again, accusing me of saying things that I have not said and that I have repeatedly and explicitly denied.

Srsly, why do you think you can get away with that? Do you think that I won't remember what I've said and that I'm unable to look back on my own posts? It's incredibly insulting to accuse me of saying things I haven't said and think I won't notice.

[Jaitsu]

do remember there are other places that matter other then your native country.

where i live, i find there are charitable people that aren't religious just as much as there are religious charitables, especially the legion in my town.

[xLostWingx]

I am not disagreeing with the negetive influence that religion has had on the world.  I am saying two things.

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.

You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion.  But you can't say what would be happening.  I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway.  Before I hear anymore about false dichotmies, these are analogies, they are not perfect representations of what we are talking about, obviously.  Propose a true dichotomy that we can work with.  You may say there isn't one, fine.  I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do.  I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way.  Now I do.  I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.

[yarLson]

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

1. your absolutely right, but to even pretend like things are going to get better while it remains a dominant economic force is absolute insanity. The literal definition of insanity is to try the same thing multiple times while expecting a different result to happen. Nothing I can think of embodies this better than religion. The obvious answer in this case would be to try something else, perhaps science which requires that something have a series of vigorous tests to prove its legitmacy before being widely accepted. Maybe it won't help, but its better than remaining stagnant.

2.Yes right again, hopefully that thing is science 

I don't think people will ever stop killing each other. This is not my best quality, but let me try to paint a picture. To me war is as natural and as beneficial as breathing, but any natural thing can be manipulated, by intelligent entities, to become very unatural occurences. For example imagine all you did all day was sit at your computer yet your breathing was as rapid as if you were running a marathon constantly. This kind of breathing is not healthy or by any means natural. Similarly, the way we express our natural inclanation of warfare has become pathological and extremely unhealthy. I don't know if any of you have ever heard of an economic hitman, but this is one very good example of what I am talking about. It has begun to degrade the quality of life for people on every continent and only for the sake of spreading more blind hatred fueled by ignorance, ultimately resulting in unneeded and unwanted death, over something as simple; as meaningless as a piece of paper with fancy symbols on it. I know its not the best example but hopefully you get the idea. I am not saying do away with the monitary system necissarily, but I am saying that we need to shift focus as a society (because I believe that on an individual basis most people already know but are forced into this inefficient way of doing things) and realize that what truly matters is what we spend our money on, and not the money itself. This balls to the wall rambo approach of making money at any and all costs has got to at least be slowed. Right now it is actually growing.

I think that what we really need right now as a global society, is to emphasize the importance of education at a young age. And I don't mean this plus/minus pledge of allegiance bullshit. I'm talking calculus, computer science and programming, physics, chemistry, uncensored history, political science; the works.

It won't make the world a perfect place, but at least it will help to stop the mass manipulation that mascarades as politics for the last couple decades. It is much more difficult to manipulate a mind that is fully aware of the dynamics of causality and logical progression.

At least then a lot more of the wars that are fought will have a logically sound reasoning behind them.

[Kudistos Megistos]

1.  It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.

If religion causes bad things and the bad outweighs the good, then yes, it is sensible to believe we would be better off without it.

2.  If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.

Like what? Give a specific example and a reason why you think it would happen. Don't say absolutist politics: religion and absolutist politics are perfectly capable of co-existing, and there has been no difference between the barbarism in secular totalitarian states and the barbarism in religious ones.

What new thing would take its place? And why do you assert this with such confidence? Do you have any reason to believe that there is something specific that will replace religion, or is it a matter of faith?

Until you can give a an example of something that will replace religion and a reason why you think it will replace it, your argument holds no weight.

If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.

Even as an analogy, this fails.

Or rather, it proves my point.

If there were no guns, there would still be means of killing people, but these means of killing people would be either less effective (such as knives) or harder to obtain (such as explosives and non-conventional weapons). There would still be killing, but probably quite a bit less of it.

You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion.  But you can't say what would be happening.  I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway.

If we followed your logic, we wouldn't be able to discuss anything and we wouldn't be able to say there is anything that we should get rid of.

Some people might say that the world would be a better place if people didn't murder children, but by your logic, we'd have to say that we might be better off with a few child murders because one of those murdered children might have grown up to be the next Hitler.

I wonder how you manage to plan for the future. I mean, you seem incapable of discussing hypothetical scenarios due to an excessive and debilitating scepticism and an inability to distinguish between educated guesses and wild guesses. Do you abstain from planning anything because you don't know for certain what the future will bring? Do you abstain from buying food because there's a small chance that you might develop an allergy overnight? Do you abstain from putting money into the bank because the currency might collapse tomorrow?

You say that we can't even make educated guesses about the future, but you seem to believe as a matter of faith that something will replace religion and it will keep the balance of good things and bad things exactly the same as it was. You don't know what this is and you don't give any reasons why this should happen, but you're certain that something will come along.

This belief is almost religious. Are you one of those people who believes in some pseudo-oriental "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" philosophies? Do you think that there's some law of history that asserts that when a bad thing is eliminated, something will come to take its place and restore the balance? And if so, why should be take you seriously?

I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do.

Even when I say that I don't?

Be careful, you might end up with a rape charge if you keep on like that:

Yes, I know that she said "Ew! I'd rather stick a wolverine in my vagina than have sex with you!" but her language wiggled its eyebrows and gestures furtively to suggest that she did want the lostwing cock.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way.

Yes you are trying to convince me. Don't pretend that you're not. If you weren't, you wouldn't still be arguing.

Now I do.

MR SCEPTIC KNOWS SOMETHING!

That's amusing. You claim that we can't even make guesses about the future, but you think you know what goes on in my mind? When the problem of other minds is one of the biggest in philosophy? And you claim to know why I think the way I do even though you've consistently shown that you don't even know what I think? This is most intriguing. Tell me how you know why I think the way I do. And tell me why I think the way I do.

I ask this because your interpretation will tell me something hilarious about you.

I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.

Give examples.

Until you do, I'm going to dismiss this as trying to make excuses for your intellectually dishonest behaviour.

[xLostWingx]

If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate.  If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?  You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.  If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right.  But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.  Without religion, humanity would have developed differently.  If you mean everyone, right now, would be better off if religion vanished completely, that is something entirely different than a scenario in which religion never existed to begin with.

Maybe nothng would "take religion's place" but the priorities of everything else in the world would be shifted. 

No, supply and demand.  If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher.  Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.  It is not as if warfare regresses because gun's don't get invented. 

You can make wild guesses appear educated.  Lawyers do it all the time.

So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden.  And you say that I insult you.

You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.  As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas.  I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."

Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.

[Covarr]

xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.

You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.

He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.

You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.

He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.

While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and  makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.

tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.

[m35]

1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).

[Kudistos Megistos]

xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.

You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.

No here's how it works:

I make an assertion with evidence. Until you can prove that my evidence is irrelevant, that the conclusion can't follow from it or that there is better evidence supporting the opposing argument, I am right.

Someone else makes an assertion not only without proof, but without evidence. Until he finds something to back it up, I dismiss it.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.

No, I don't believe in the existence of a higher being because there is no evidence for it and because it massively contradicts what we already know.

I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.

You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.

I know it's a commonly-used expression, but I don't like it. "Nigger" is also a commonly used expression, but some people don't like it.

And I didn't label either of your posts wrong based on one thing. I respond to every relevant point. Your assertion is absolutely baseless and absolutely wrong.

He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.

I was hasty in saying "all", but it doesn't matter. Your argument would still have been nonsense even if only limited to angry atheists. I actually responded to you when you first made this complaint. You seem to have ignored what I said and concentrated on one miswording, as if it negated everything else I said.

What was it that you were saying about calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of someone's post? And what did you say about hypocrisy?

While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and  makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.

tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.

If I'd said this, the mods would have been all over me for making personal attacks.

Incidentally, this quote proves my point about the malign influence of religion. Just look how upset people get when you insult their imaginary friend.

1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.

2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).

Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").

If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate. If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?

And therefore I don't advocate the killing of spiders. In fact, I've always liked them.

But religion is not analogous.

You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.

Oh yes, I forgot, you're not a sceptic about everything. You apply higher epistemic standard to some questions than to others. Try being more consistent with your scepticism in future.

If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right.  But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.

And would we have evolved as well?

The eye is something that has evolved separately in many different creatures. It's a remarkably useful adaptation and it therefore does not follow that we'd do just as well without it. There appears to be something uniquely useful about the eye for creatures in the animal kingdom.

No, supply and demand.  If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher.  Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.

It would have taken a lot longer for them to reach the same level. Without guns, weaponry would always have been one step behind what it currently is.

You can make wild guesses appear educated.  Lawyers do it all the time.

How do I do so? At the moment, it just looks like you're complaining because you can't refute me.

So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden.  And you say that I insult you.

I don't remember comparing you to Osama bin Laden, but you're reminding me of him now.

The rapist bit was a joke about what might happen if the logic you used when debating with me were used during your everyday life.

You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.

As a great man once said, one should try not to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.

As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas.  I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."

I don't either. I say "because he used all of these words in this combination, he's wrong".

I can't refute your ideas for the simple reason that they're so vague that they can't be engaged with. Fortunately, another great man said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.

But you said that you already know why I think the way I do? Are you admitting that you were wrong?

Anyway, I shouldn't bother you any more. If you feel that you need to have a few months of therapy, I shouldn't get in your way. Give my regards to your therapist.

[DLPB_]

I agree that a world without religion would be a better place, simply because I see how the middle east and most of africa is wrecked by it (and how 1 particular religion is crippling Britain and incompatible with sane just laws)..  In africa even catholic dogma is causing severe death by instructing them not to wear condoms or have any birth control.  But Islamic countries fare far worse since they are blowing each other up, mutiliating little girls, brainwashing people, and generally have awful degraded culture because it is based on that religion.

I think logically there can be no doubt that a world without religion would be a fairer and nicer place.  A world without any creative force or purpose however, might not, since a lot of people would lose hope and have no care for their actions.  But on religion, the evidence as it is suggests it has caused or contributed or prolonged far too much death and destruction through the ages and continues to.

Will all war and all trouble stop without religion?  Of course not.  It is our nature.  The reason religion exists in such a controlling and bigoted way is because Human's made it up.  Religion is flawed because we are. But the world without religion would be a far better place.  You can count 3000 people alive in the 1 attack on sep 11th ALONE.

The problem with religion is that it can seem to REWARD people with AFTERLIFE.  So people do not take their LIFE seriously.  They think "Well my book tells me if I do right I go heaven" and "right" depends on interpretation sometimes.  In Islam's case, Muslims are told to conquer the earth and drive out the non believers/christians/jews.  Jihad is a means to heaven.

So, religion is the worst thing in these circumstances because it can reward and give people something no other ideology can:  Eternal life.


therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait

It was.  But when you reach a certain stage, things like this become a burden on society.  jealousy is a survival trait but it doesn't help us...  in many ways it dooms us.  Same way many negative emotions do.