Economics and geopolitics are far more powerful predictors of human behavior than religion.
And what do you think motivates those? Religion isn't a separate motivating factor, it's the ultimate motivating factor.
...no? like, not at all.
what motivates economics and geopolitics are the most basic human urges - survival and security, through food, shelter, wealth, power, etc.
other motivations are xenophobia, fear, hatred, desperation, ignorance, etc. the causes for these things are prior to religion. they are often shared with religion and immersed in it, but bigotry and hatred and etc are culturall produced by structures distinct from religion. religion is just a package. any kind of group hate usually springs from a past conflict over resources or territory anyways.
do you think that, for example, the israel/palestine conflict would be resolved if both sides were secularized? of course not. their motivation for conflict is too pervasive, and too rooted in identity, in geography (even aside from religion), even in sheer practical concerns - where will the people live, grow food, work, etc?
any religious war or conflict is religious in name only. it is about territory or power or resources, or it is about the hatred and the vendettas that spring up from those original desires. religion is not the reason for the conflict, it is simply a banner under which people can rally.
there are definitely places where religion is a major contributor to the harm being caused. The combination of superstitious beliefs and Catholic dogma in Africa has certainly contributed to the AIDS crisis. The evolution "debate" in the US is pretty much entirely an issue of religion, and it is spreading scientific ignorance and flat-out anti-science, anti-intellectual attitudes, although it is constructed on a sound, non-religious base of anti-intellectual cultural history going back to old Scottish "common sense" philosophy and probably further/wider.
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
The left-right spectrum of politics, from the time of the French Revolution to the present, has always been fundamentally centered on the distribution of wealth and power.
Hachface on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
No, you could take away religion and all of the world's problems suddenly become political. Which would be a dream come true.
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
Spouting off religious rhetoric as a justification for goosery is actually the distinguishing difference.
FroThulhu on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
The left-right spectrum of politics, from the time of the French Revolution to the present, has always been fundamentally centered on the distribution of wealth and power.
That's not what I mean and you know it.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
Spouting off religious rhetoric as a justification for goosery is actually the distinguishing difference.
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
If you ignore the massive proportion of atheists who are libertarian and massive number of religious voters who are liberal, maybe that's true.
I think you underestimate the importance of identity in this equation. Conservative communities tend to have extremely strong sense of communial/nation identity, religion being an aspect of this. How many highly religious people do you know who are the same religion as their family/community? A lot, right? Now how many extremely conservative people do you know whose parents are conservative? I'd bet almost as many (although society tends to skew liberal over time, so probably a little fewer).
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
No, you could take away religion and all of the world's problems suddenly become political. Which would be a dream come true.
why do you say that? the world's problems would be just as pervasive and difficult to resolve. i don't think religion is actually a more powerful excuse for anyone but the most extreme. even suicide bombers are as much nationalist as they are religious zealots. any cause's rhetoric can froth people up if it's drilled in from birth.
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
So what I'm asking is, where do you think the "religious" element ends and the other aspects of humanity begin? What's the difference? If you remove religion, will people act any differently, or will they find other ways to justify their actions?
I don't know. Do you think far-right Republicans are fundamentally different than far-left Liberals in their outlook towards others? I'd say so. Adherence to religion is the top distinguishing difference.
Spouting off religious rhetoric as a justification for goosery is actually the distinguishing difference.
True. Well put.
However, there have been plenty of just straight-up atrocities commited by secularists, inspired my maniacs spouting off non-religious monstrous philosophies.
And politically-motivated problems are in no way better than religiously-motivated problems. Take away the Muslim/Jewish conflict in the middle east and you've still got pissed off, hungry, bored assholes trying to take eachother's stuff.
Take away "the Bible says God hates homosexuals," and you've still got sexually-insecure assholes killing gays because they're scared of something they shouldn't be.
Take away whatever proverb-of-the-week from the conservative parties, and you've still got rich old white men trying to get richer and, somehow, whiter.
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
No, you could take away religion and all of the world's problems suddenly become political. Which would be a dream come true.
You're already seeing this in action, with Birthers and shit. It's really not any better.
I mean think of all the shit in the bible religious people don't pay attention to or bother to follow. Whether it's Leviticus' wacky rules or more sane shit like "judge not lest ye be judged," people will change their beliefs to whatever suits them.
Do you really think if religion were replaced by politics, or hell, science, people wouldn't be just as stupid? Look at the alternative medicine business. Look at Fox News. Getting rid of religion removes a symptom, not the cause.
Perhaps because you live in bumfuck bible-thump Texas that's all you see. Out here in the real world there are tons of people who go to church or believe in God and are progressive people, and you know what? They hate BS social conservatives as much as the rest of us, because they misrepresent what religion is.
What is religion then, sir? And how exactly does following the Bible misrepresent it?
They misrepresent religion because religion doesn't consist of rigid adherence to a set of standards. It is a set of beliefs that define the reason for life and our lives, and therefore is whatever you make it. EVERY religion has a spectrum of beliefs that people pick and choose from to get what they want out of it - there is no reason to subscribe to a religion other than for personal fulfillment, so why shouldn't they? 83% of people in the US claim to be part of a religion, and yet only 40% go to services weekly. I guess the other 43% are just "bad christians/jews/muslims" in your opinion. And when you define people who aren't hateful bigots as "bad christians," or "bad anythings" you play right into the hands of hateful conservatives.
I know Jews who eat pork, and do things on the Sabbath. Muslims too. And Christians who never go to church. And Catholics who use birth control. You don't have to follow everything to a T in order to consider yourself part of a religion.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
No, you could take away religion and all of the world's problems suddenly become political. Which would be a dream come true.
You're already seeing this in action, with Birthers and shit. It's really not any better.
I mean think of all the shit in the bible religious people don't pay attention to or bother to follow. Like Leviticus' wacky rules or "judge not lest ye be judged."
Do you really think if religion were replaced by politics, or hell, science, people wouldn't be just as stupid? Look at the alternative medicine business. Look at Fox News. Getting rid of religion removes a symptom, not the cause.
Alternative medicine is a joke, derided by pretty much everyone except a small minority. Fox News is less of a minority, but still a transparent joke to anyone who doesn't buy into it.
The same is not true of Religion.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.
Well, you could believe in a master morality for some and a slave morality for others. Ever read Crime and Punishment?
The goal isn't so much de-conversion but rather eliminating superstitions as the basis for a worldview. Quite frankly, I don't care if you're a deist or a watered-down Christian.
I used to think that Religion was the cause of all evil in the world. I mean, these religious fanatics started up all these terrorist attacks just around the time when I started paying attention to the news!
Then I started to read about the history behind it all and realized that religion...is not really all that big of a problem when you come down to it.
Alternative medicine is a joke, derided by pretty much everyone except a small minority. Fox News is less of a minority, but still a transparent joke to anyone who doesn't buy into it.
The same is not true of Religion.
Really? I'm pretty sure the adherents of most religions believe the other ones are all false.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Most religious folk I know just keep it to themselves, and generally it's the atheists that go around going LOL U R WRONGGGGG unprovoked. I live on the east coast of Canada. A lot of it is a reaction to, welp, Americans from the south. The kind that kill gay people and call it an honest day's work. These people exist, are legitimately terrifying, and are worth talking about.
But to attack your average Christian for them is like accosting a Muslim walking down the street for the actions of some nationalists in Afghanistan (c wut i did thar). In Canada, religion is mostly a non-issue. Our science minister got openly mocked in the national newspapers for refusing to avow his belief in Evolution. Relationships between party leaders and religious groups are looked upon with suspicion. Anyone proposing that we outlaw construction of mosques would literally get laughed out the room.
In a sense, the battle has been won, it's now just a slow readjustment of societal values to accommodate this multi-faith spectrum. Church attendance is dropping as non-believers stop feeling it is a social necessity to go to service. We rightly bemoan that church organs are being lost to this, and eventually secular groups will claim those organs and integrate them. It's a cool thing to watch.
The difficult part is watching this slow progression happen. Staunch atheists who would see every church torn down and replaced with a science centre aren't satisfied that religion still remains a large cultural component. Religious groups are upset at their waning power, and focus on easy answers rather then dealing with yo, maybe not that many people actually believed in the first place. Natural equilibrium hasn't yet been established, and the crazies of both sides are pushing this process under the delusion that their efforts will somehow sway the final outcome.
Is there good cause for atheists in the US to vocally protest? Welp,
They're just another marginalized minority, and should join forces with the muslims, the natives, and the jews in battling against efforts to enact a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
I used to think that Religion was the cause of all evil in the world. I mean, these religious fanatics started up all these terrorist attacks just around the time when I started paying attention to the news!
Then I started to read about the history behind it all and realized that religion...is not really all that big of a problem when you come down to it.
Still think it's kinda silly though.
i definitely think religion is silly, which is i think almost more insulting to a religious person - i am not objecting to the deep problems of fanaticism and violence springing from belief, or something, i am just calling them childish or foolish and rolling my eyes, even though i'm trying not to.
and i think there are certainly deep problems that spring up from buying into the dogma of an ancient text and its interpreters, who have their own definitely non-spiritual agenda
but i think that the worse problems are the products of culture, socioeconomics, geography, etc
Perhaps because you live in bumfuck bible-thump Texas that's all you see. Out here in the real world there are tons of people who go to church or believe in God and are progressive people, and you know what? They hate BS social conservatives as much as the rest of us, because they misrepresent what religion is.
What is religion then, sir? And how exactly does following the Bible misrepresent it?
They misrepresent religion because religion doesn't consist of rigid adherence to a set of standards. It is a set of beliefs that define the reason for life and our lives, and therefore is whatever you make it. EVERY religion has a spectrum of beliefs that people pick and choose from to get what they want out of it - there is no reason to subscribe to a religion other than for personal fulfillment, so why shouldn't they? 83% of people in the US claim to be part of a religion, and yet only 40% go to services weekly. I guess the other 43% are just "bad christians/jews/muslims" in your opinion. And when you define people who aren't hateful bigots as "bad christians," or "bad anythings" you play right into the hands of hateful conservatives.
I know Jews who eat pork, and do things on the Sabbath. Muslims too. And Christians who never go to church. And Catholics who use birth control. You don't have to follow everything to a T in order to consider yourself part of a religion.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
This is what I'm running on. Because... isn't there some sort of law that says, essentially, you can't get something from nothing?
And then I ask where that 'god' came from, and then there's just an infinitude of questions, and imagination time. YAY! IMAGINATION TIME!
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
That depends on whether you consider relativism sane.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I was just talking about this the other day.
I probably have some hangups because I was raised atheist, so there was no terrible experience of terrible religion Z to cause me to turn. I went to an atheist meeting and I was terribly annoyed by the things they wordlessly mouthed. It was almost like attending a church of sorts and I found it horribly offputting. I worry greatly about the kind of person who can be a zealous christian, have an epiphany, and then become a militant atheist. I feel like they are doing the same thing only in reverse and it bothers me.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
I love posts like this. Scientific expertise is extremely narrow, and one of the greatest challenges a scientist faces is recognizing the narrowness of their study and properly acknowledging it as a limitation to their work.
Science is a method. Form hypothesis on prior data. Gather data to test hypothesis. Analyze and interpret data. Publish results for your peers.
Belief in god has as little to do with your ability to do cellular biology as does theoretical chemistry involving the noble gases.
Robman on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
That depends on whether you consider relativism sane.
It is not so much relativism as it is, "Hey, buddy, here is the ultimate truth: nothing fucking matters. Don't tell anyone; society would fall apart."
I myself think society can take it. But I see why some people wouldn't.
Look guys - all I'm saying is that if you can believe that a single man rose from the dead, performed miracles, and was the son of an all knowing being, then why is it so absurd to believe that a fat man wearing red and white delivers presents to me on christmas morning?
I still believe!
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.
Well I think he's talking about how religion provides such a great security blanket (provided you don't make the mistake of being somewhat different and therefore pissing God off and be damned TO EVERLASTING TORMENT!!!!).
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
That depends on whether you consider relativism sane.
It is not so much relativism as it is, "Hey, buddy, here is the ultimate truth: nothing fucking matters. Don't tell anyone; society would fall apart."
I myself think society can take it. But I see why some people wouldn't.
Nihilism and sophistry are also not that sane.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
Science vs religion is not really an apt comparison to be honest, because there are a lot of philosophical/ethical guidelines that some religions propose like "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" or "desire/clinging is the root cause of suffering" or "discrimination is wrong" that are sort of hard to put in a scientific context.
So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.
I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.
Well I think he's talking about how religion provides such a great security blanket (provided you don't make the mistake of being somewhat different and therefore pissing God off and be damned TO EVERLASTING TORMENT!!!!).
In other words it's a crutch that prevents you from seeing the truth and limits your development as a human being.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
I love posts like this. Scientific expertise is extremely narrow, and one of the greatest challenges a scientist faces is recognizing the narrowness of their study and properly acknowledging it as a limitation to their work.
Science is a method. Form hypothesis on prior data. Gather data to test hypothesis. Analyze and interpret data. Publish results for your peers.
Belief in god has as little to do with your ability to do cellular biology as does theoretical chemistry involving the noble gases.
All depends on what god and what kind of belief.
Sterica on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It is not so much relativism as it is, "Hey, buddy, here is the ultimate truth: nothing fucking matters. Don't tell anyone; society would fall apart."
I myself think society can take it. But I see why some people wouldn't.
Nihilism and sophistry are also not that sane.
Well, that guy wouldn't actually be a nihilist, because he cares about society. But yeah he's either mute or a sophist. But sophistry is usually pretty sane. There are lots of rational reasons to deceive.
So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.
Oh but I do.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.
Oh but I do.
I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.
So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.
Oh but I do.
I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
I love posts like this. Scientific expertise is extremely narrow, and one of the greatest challenges a scientist faces is recognizing the narrowness of their study and properly acknowledging it as a limitation to their work.
Science is a method. Form hypothesis on prior data. Gather data to test hypothesis. Analyze and interpret data. Publish results for your peers.
Belief in god has as little to do with your ability to do cellular biology as does theoretical chemistry involving the noble gases.
All depends on what god and what kind of belief.
You can beleive in a six-armed aryan supergod with size DD tits, an itty bitty waist and more junk in the trunk then a shift boot sale, but you can still do bang-up DNA chemistry. Because a bunch of ornery assholes of different world views will look over your work before it gets published.
The magic of the scientific method.
I hate it when people talk about Science with the capital S, it's a fucking flowchart. Scientism, if you dig down deeply enough, just replaces the monks with researchers and the priests with scientific journalists.
Posts
...no? like, not at all.
what motivates economics and geopolitics are the most basic human urges - survival and security, through food, shelter, wealth, power, etc.
other motivations are xenophobia, fear, hatred, desperation, ignorance, etc. the causes for these things are prior to religion. they are often shared with religion and immersed in it, but bigotry and hatred and etc are culturall produced by structures distinct from religion. religion is just a package. any kind of group hate usually springs from a past conflict over resources or territory anyways.
do you think that, for example, the israel/palestine conflict would be resolved if both sides were secularized? of course not. their motivation for conflict is too pervasive, and too rooted in identity, in geography (even aside from religion), even in sheer practical concerns - where will the people live, grow food, work, etc?
any religious war or conflict is religious in name only. it is about territory or power or resources, or it is about the hatred and the vendettas that spring up from those original desires. religion is not the reason for the conflict, it is simply a banner under which people can rally.
there are definitely places where religion is a major contributor to the harm being caused. The combination of superstitious beliefs and Catholic dogma in Africa has certainly contributed to the AIDS crisis. The evolution "debate" in the US is pretty much entirely an issue of religion, and it is spreading scientific ignorance and flat-out anti-science, anti-intellectual attitudes, although it is constructed on a sound, non-religious base of anti-intellectual cultural history going back to old Scottish "common sense" philosophy and probably further/wider.
but to suggest that religion is the predominant cause of the world's ills? it's ludicrous. you could take away religion and the world's problems would be much the same.
The left-right spectrum of politics, from the time of the French Revolution to the present, has always been fundamentally centered on the distribution of wealth and power.
No, you could take away religion and all of the world's problems suddenly become political. Which would be a dream come true.
Spouting off religious rhetoric as a justification for goosery is actually the distinguishing difference.
That's not what I mean and you know it.
True. Well put.
If you ignore the massive proportion of atheists who are libertarian and massive number of religious voters who are liberal, maybe that's true.
I think you underestimate the importance of identity in this equation. Conservative communities tend to have extremely strong sense of communial/nation identity, religion being an aspect of this. How many highly religious people do you know who are the same religion as their family/community? A lot, right? Now how many extremely conservative people do you know whose parents are conservative? I'd bet almost as many (although society tends to skew liberal over time, so probably a little fewer).
why do you say that? the world's problems would be just as pervasive and difficult to resolve. i don't think religion is actually a more powerful excuse for anyone but the most extreme. even suicide bombers are as much nationalist as they are religious zealots. any cause's rhetoric can froth people up if it's drilled in from birth.
But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.
If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.
However, there have been plenty of just straight-up atrocities commited by secularists, inspired my maniacs spouting off non-religious monstrous philosophies.
And politically-motivated problems are in no way better than religiously-motivated problems. Take away the Muslim/Jewish conflict in the middle east and you've still got pissed off, hungry, bored assholes trying to take eachother's stuff.
Take away "the Bible says God hates homosexuals," and you've still got sexually-insecure assholes killing gays because they're scared of something they shouldn't be.
Take away whatever proverb-of-the-week from the conservative parties, and you've still got rich old white men trying to get richer and, somehow, whiter.
You're already seeing this in action, with Birthers and shit. It's really not any better.
I mean think of all the shit in the bible religious people don't pay attention to or bother to follow. Whether it's Leviticus' wacky rules or more sane shit like "judge not lest ye be judged," people will change their beliefs to whatever suits them.
Do you really think if religion were replaced by politics, or hell, science, people wouldn't be just as stupid? Look at the alternative medicine business. Look at Fox News. Getting rid of religion removes a symptom, not the cause.
They misrepresent religion because religion doesn't consist of rigid adherence to a set of standards. It is a set of beliefs that define the reason for life and our lives, and therefore is whatever you make it. EVERY religion has a spectrum of beliefs that people pick and choose from to get what they want out of it - there is no reason to subscribe to a religion other than for personal fulfillment, so why shouldn't they? 83% of people in the US claim to be part of a religion, and yet only 40% go to services weekly. I guess the other 43% are just "bad christians/jews/muslims" in your opinion. And when you define people who aren't hateful bigots as "bad christians," or "bad anythings" you play right into the hands of hateful conservatives.
I know Jews who eat pork, and do things on the Sabbath. Muslims too. And Christians who never go to church. And Catholics who use birth control. You don't have to follow everything to a T in order to consider yourself part of a religion.
Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.
Alternative medicine is a joke, derided by pretty much everyone except a small minority. Fox News is less of a minority, but still a transparent joke to anyone who doesn't buy into it.
The same is not true of Religion.
I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
Well, you could believe in a master morality for some and a slave morality for others. Ever read Crime and Punishment?
it is not nearly as massive as religion, obviously, but it's certainly very big.
Alternative medicine and religion also have a lot of overlap. I mean, if you want to dignify the New Age grab bag of beliefs with the word religion.
Then I started to read about the history behind it all and realized that religion...is not really all that big of a problem when you come down to it.
Still think it's kinda silly though.
Really? I'm pretty sure the adherents of most religions believe the other ones are all false.
If all you believe in are the facts of science, and pay no mind to the methodology of science, the philosophy of science, then you are as bad a scientist as all those "liberal" religious people are at following their supposed religion.
Most religious folk I know just keep it to themselves, and generally it's the atheists that go around going LOL U R WRONGGGGG unprovoked. I live on the east coast of Canada. A lot of it is a reaction to, welp, Americans from the south. The kind that kill gay people and call it an honest day's work. These people exist, are legitimately terrifying, and are worth talking about.
But to attack your average Christian for them is like accosting a Muslim walking down the street for the actions of some nationalists in Afghanistan (c wut i did thar). In Canada, religion is mostly a non-issue. Our science minister got openly mocked in the national newspapers for refusing to avow his belief in Evolution. Relationships between party leaders and religious groups are looked upon with suspicion. Anyone proposing that we outlaw construction of mosques would literally get laughed out the room.
In a sense, the battle has been won, it's now just a slow readjustment of societal values to accommodate this multi-faith spectrum. Church attendance is dropping as non-believers stop feeling it is a social necessity to go to service. We rightly bemoan that church organs are being lost to this, and eventually secular groups will claim those organs and integrate them. It's a cool thing to watch.
The difficult part is watching this slow progression happen. Staunch atheists who would see every church torn down and replaced with a science centre aren't satisfied that religion still remains a large cultural component. Religious groups are upset at their waning power, and focus on easy answers rather then dealing with yo, maybe not that many people actually believed in the first place. Natural equilibrium hasn't yet been established, and the crazies of both sides are pushing this process under the delusion that their efforts will somehow sway the final outcome.
Is there good cause for atheists in the US to vocally protest? Welp,
They're just another marginalized minority, and should join forces with the muslims, the natives, and the jews in battling against efforts to enact a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
i definitely think religion is silly, which is i think almost more insulting to a religious person - i am not objecting to the deep problems of fanaticism and violence springing from belief, or something, i am just calling them childish or foolish and rolling my eyes, even though i'm trying not to.
and i think there are certainly deep problems that spring up from buying into the dogma of an ancient text and its interpreters, who have their own definitely non-spiritual agenda
but i think that the worse problems are the products of culture, socioeconomics, geography, etc
This is what I'm running on. Because... isn't there some sort of law that says, essentially, you can't get something from nothing?
And then I ask where that 'god' came from, and then there's just an infinitude of questions, and imagination time. YAY! IMAGINATION TIME!
That depends on whether you consider relativism sane.
I probably have some hangups because I was raised atheist, so there was no terrible experience of terrible religion Z to cause me to turn. I went to an atheist meeting and I was terribly annoyed by the things they wordlessly mouthed. It was almost like attending a church of sorts and I found it horribly offputting. I worry greatly about the kind of person who can be a zealous christian, have an epiphany, and then become a militant atheist. I feel like they are doing the same thing only in reverse and it bothers me.
I love posts like this. Scientific expertise is extremely narrow, and one of the greatest challenges a scientist faces is recognizing the narrowness of their study and properly acknowledging it as a limitation to their work.
Science is a method. Form hypothesis on prior data. Gather data to test hypothesis. Analyze and interpret data. Publish results for your peers.
Belief in god has as little to do with your ability to do cellular biology as does theoretical chemistry involving the noble gases.
It is not so much relativism as it is, "Hey, buddy, here is the ultimate truth: nothing fucking matters. Don't tell anyone; society would fall apart."
I myself think society can take it. But I see why some people wouldn't.
I still believe!
Well I think he's talking about how religion provides such a great security blanket (provided you don't make the mistake of being somewhat different and therefore pissing God off and be damned TO EVERLASTING TORMENT!!!!).
Nihilism and sophistry are also not that sane.
Science vs religion is not really an apt comparison to be honest, because there are a lot of philosophical/ethical guidelines that some religions propose like "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" or "desire/clinging is the root cause of suffering" or "discrimination is wrong" that are sort of hard to put in a scientific context.
So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.
In other words it's a crutch that prevents you from seeing the truth and limits your development as a human being.
Well, that guy wouldn't actually be a nihilist, because he cares about society. But yeah he's either mute or a sophist. But sophistry is usually pretty sane. There are lots of rational reasons to deceive.
Oh but I do.
I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.
As well as how it relates to Hamtaro.
We had a thread on this.
You can beleive in a six-armed aryan supergod with size DD tits, an itty bitty waist and more junk in the trunk then a shift boot sale, but you can still do bang-up DNA chemistry. Because a bunch of ornery assholes of different world views will look over your work before it gets published.
The magic of the scientific method.
I hate it when people talk about Science with the capital S, it's a fucking flowchart. Scientism, if you dig down deeply enough, just replaces the monks with researchers and the priests with scientific journalists.