Does Atheism Cause More Wars Than Theism?

[David Sklansky]

Yep. Forget the argument that the atheistic tyrants who massively murdered did not do it in the name of atheism and the religious tyrants who murdered somewhat fewer did it in the name of their religion. The better argument which I have not seen theists use is that religion STOPS more murders than it causes.

Technically you could say that this doesn't mean that atheism CAUSE the problems. Semantics. Its like saying that if atheists are less likely to save African children than theists, atheism doesn't cause their deaths. Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be. And this would be even more true if a few specific pesky religions changed their ways.

Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

I think the world would be a much better place if religious people would admit that they are ASSUMING their god exists as opposed to proclaiming that they are sure he exists. Because such proclamations are moronic, even more so if they claim that objective evidence points to their god being a heavy favorite over other versions of god or no god. But even if they won't make this concession the world is probably better off if most people are religious. With few exceptions (eg Iron Unkind), becoming an atheist won't change a moron into a non moron. And it will make most people pretty hopeless and maybe even dangerous.

[chezlaw]

makes no difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be

[/ QUOTE ]
If RJT wasn't nice he would be BluffThis. Maybe you can make a case to support your claim but it seems highly unlikely.

chez

[samsonite2100]

So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[Phil153]

I don't know. Here's an alternative viewpoint. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

The most advanced and peaceful societies on earth are far less religious than America. Far from rigorous, of course, but an interesting point. Most of the data shows a small to moderate negative correlation between crime and religion, but that could easily be due to the effects of community.

Besides, I think you're missing the point here. Most 30, 40 or 50 year olds are obviously not going to benefit from being de-religioned. But the real battle is being fought over the minds of kids. You'd have a hard time convincing me that a child raised under a philosophy of secular ethics and compassion would be a worse citizen than a religious person. It's certainly not the case in my country where a large portion of youth outright do not believe in God.

The only case you could make is that it catches a few of the subhuman, sub 90 IQ types and stops them becoming criminal, but I don't see evidence of that either.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The better argument which I have not seen theists use is that religion STOPS more murders than it causes.


[/ QUOTE ]

That argument has been made here David. But I think you're right to say it's the one to focus on.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the world would be a much better place if religious people would admit that they are ASSUMING their god exists as opposed to proclaiming that they are sure he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of using the word "Assume" rather than "believe" or, shudder, "know" is interesting. It can be a practical approach to the Spiritual. Form a conception of a loving God that is safe for you, Assume god exists according to that understanding, and see how prayer works. This approach has actually proved very succesful for many people.

However, I'm not sure how accurate the word "Assume" is for those who have formed a "Belief". I think they convey different meanings. Nevertheless, I think there is potential in use of the word "Assume" in seeking common ground for people with various relationships to Faith.

I think Believers need to practice a little empathy when employing the word "know". While it may have a specialized meaning amongst themselves, they need to consider the response others have to it. Is it a stumbling block to meeting others in a Spirit of Love? They should consider whether it is something that needs to be "plucked out". At least for certain situations.

[ QUOTE ]
such proclamations make them morons, even more so if they claim that objective evidence points to their god being a heavy favorite over other versions of god or no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see them doing that. Believers talk about "Faith". They believe what they believe. It's the Atheists who insist on reducing everything to objective evidence. I do think that Believers need to practice more Humility. They also need to take the Spiritual more seriously. Spiritual Reality is as Real as Real can be. They don't need to treat the Words used in their Faith like concrete objects to make them real when they are just Words, metaphors, and allegories. The Spiritual Reality they point to is Real. The Words are just words.

PairTheBoard

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[samsonite2100]

Also, this

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

is patently silly. I suppose a "select few" includes the millions of middle-eastern women subject to medieval shari'a law?

[Peter666]

"Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina"

The violence there can be attributed to nationalism or tribalism more than to religion. The religious ethic certainly restrains the combatants in Christian nations.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina"

The violence there can be attributed to nationalism or tribalism more than to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying religion is the sole motivating factor in these conflicts, but it's a big one, and in many of them, it's the main one.

[ QUOTE ]
The religious ethic certainly restrains the combatants in Christian nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what this means.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Here's an alternative viewpoint. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

The most advanced and peaceful societies on earth are far less religious than America. Far from rigorous, of course, but an interesting point. Most of the data shows a small to moderate negative correlation between crime and religion, but that could easily be due to the effects of community.



[/ QUOTE ]

From the Link:
[ QUOTE ]
It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of study might lend credence to the argument that once civilization reaches a certain point, Religion is no longer necessary as a civilizing force.

The thing is, it misses the Big Picture of History. Up until only fairly recently, all cultures around the World have been Dominated by Religious Practice. Even today in the more secular societies, the Principles people employ in living and dealing with each other were infused in that culture by the centuries of Religious Practice which preceded. It's really theoretically vacuous to talk about whether those principles would have been adopted without the centuries of Religious Practice because that's not how it happened.

How civilization might proceed into the Future, with or without Religion, is pure conjecture. Furthermore, Global civilization is far from homogeneous. We see how moral and ethical ethos has developed in the midst of a long History of Religious Practice in the past. Many subcultures of our current Global Civilization are more closely related to cultures of the past than to the Secular societies looked at in this study. We have evidence that Religious Practice has worked in the past for such cultures in providing desirable principles for infusion in the ethical ethos. Claiming such Religious Practice is unnecessary for this is again conjecture. It has proved successful in the past. And complaining about it is really just waving your hands in the wind because whether you like it or not, Religious Practice is going to continue in those subcultures.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, it misses the Big Picture of History. Up until only fairly recently, all cultures around the World have been Dominated by Religious Practice. Even today in the more secular societies, the Principles people employ in living and dealing with each other were infused in that culture by the centuries of Religious Practice which preceded. It's really theoretically vacuous to talk about whether those principles would have been adopted without the centuries of Religious Practice because that's not how it happened.

How civilization might proceed into the Future, with or without Religion, is pure conjecture. Furthermore, Global civilization is far from homogeneous. We see how moral and ethical ethos has developed in the midst of a long History of Religious Practice in the past. Many subcultures of our current Global Civilization are more closely related to cultures of the past than to the Secular societies looked at in this study. We have evidence that Religious Practice has worked in the past for such cultures in providing desirable principles for infusion in the ethical ethos. Claiming such Religious Practice is unnecessary for this is again conjecture. It has proved successful in the past. And complaining about it is really just waving your hands in the wind because whether you like it or not, Religious Practice is going to continue in those subcultures.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, let's see. Talking about the historical necessity of religion is "theoretically vacuous." Speculating about the future and future necessity, of religion is "pure conjecture." And complaining about religion's role in modern society is "really just waving your hands in the wind." Got it.

You realize, of course, that just writing STFU would be a lot faster, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How many unwanted pregnancies? How many miserable homosexuals? Estranged children? Blue-balled twenty-somethings? As long as we define harm narrowly enough, David wins, I guess.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that in addition to religion keeping people from doing wrong, it also doesn't make people go out and do wrong very often. I cited some examples (out of many) where this very clearly isn't the case. Explain to me what I'm missing.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about people who think they are doing right because their religion tells them to? Say trying to stop the spread of Aids in africa via abstinence programs despite knowing that condom use and better sexual education is more effective.

Or perhaps Africa wouldn't be so damned messed up if the continent hadn't been ravaged by people who used their religion and ethnicity as an excuse to murder and enslave the savages around. Do they get lumped into the religion has screwed the world pile or not? How many generations of effed up [censored] do they get credit for?

[Peter666]

A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that in addition to religion keeping people from doing wrong, it also doesn't make people go out and do wrong very often. I cited some examples (out of many) where this very clearly isn't the case. Explain to me what I'm missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You concluded with this:

[ QUOTE ]
Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what missed the point.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're my favorite poster on this whole site but this is a big fat L-O-L.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Bosnia Genocide - 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths

In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia.

Bosnia is one of several small countries that emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia, a multicultural country created after World War I by the victorious Western Allies. Yugoslavia was composed of ethnic and religious groups that had been historical rivals, even bitter enemies, including the Serbs (Orthodox Christians), Croats (Catholics) and ethnic Albanians (Muslims).

[/ QUOTE ]

For exhibit 2, I offer the crusades.
For exhibit 3, I offer Northern Island.
For exhibit 4, I offer the Catholic Church's policy on condoms.
For exhibit 5, I offer American enslavement and torture of blacks, backed by the bible
For exhibit 6, I offer the inquisition, and the divine right of evil kings.

Whether atheism can lead to greater state sponsored genocide is debatable. But as far as individuals go, a "Christian conscience" appears to make little difference to a person's willingness to commit war crimes or human rights violations.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
How many unwanted pregnancies? How many miserable homosexuals? Estranged children? Blue-balled twenty-somethings? As long as we define harm narrowly enough, David wins, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, those examples speak well to the point. Also, the especially egregious example below by samsonite2100 has to be weighed.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose a "select few" includes the millions of middle-eastern women subject to medieval shari'a law?


[/ QUOTE ]

These are better examples in my opinion than ones of "Religious" wars. Motives for war are complicated and it's hard to isolate or judge to what extent the factor of religion is to blame.

You could also point out things from the past like Aztec Sacrifice. The Glorification of Slaughter in the Roman Colosseum was probably a product of Roman Religion. We don't have those things anymore because those religions were supplanted by newer ones.

So History has seen progress by way of the development of new religions supplanting old ones and the refinement of old religions. I don't see any reason to think that process won't continue and address the shortcomings you mention. We already see it happening in fact. Throwing religion out entirely is a whole different matter.

Besides, the Sklansky-Probability-Meter on this has spoken:

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
The better argument which I have not seen theists use is that religion STOPS more murders than it causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be a better argument but that doesn't mean it's based in fact. Are there any facts that support this assertion?

Here (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) is a study that suggests there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and societal health.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to being patently absurd, this is logically fallacious. You're actually asserting here that the only people harmed by religion are those that are held back by their own beliefs. I have a hard time believing I have to actually demonstrate that this is incorrect.

If nothing else, anyone who had to attend the funeral of their loved one in the face of protests by those Westboro Baptist Church whackjobs was harmed by religion.

Any Jew who was harrassed or persecuted because he was a Jew was harmed by religion.

Any homosexual who was harrassed or persecuted by people whose religion tells them that gays are bad has been harmed by religion.

Certainly anyone who was killed or injured, or had a loved one killed or injured in the 9/11 attacks has been harmed by religion.

Here's a simple fact. If you're suggesting that the only people harmed by religion are the people that follow it, you're wrong.

Religion almost by its nature sets up an artificial ingrou/outgroup conflict. Islam is probably the worst offender today but fundamental Christians aren't far behind and Christianity certainly has a history rife with evil.

The world would be better without religion if for no other reason than that religion fosters a culture of belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Ideas seem "out there" when they are far different from the accepted norm. I will now digress to illustrate the point.

The Radical Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Whigs) were considered whackjobs by their contemporary British counterparts because they held certain positions what were totally out of step with the norm. For example, they espoused universal male suffrage in a time when, in England, only a small minority could vote. These Radical Whigs were considered much less radical in the colonies at the time because the norms in the colonies were different. The universal male suffrage position was a lot less ludicrous to a people who were familiar with 65% male suffrage than it was to people with 17% male suffrage. Consequently while the Radical Whigs were considered fringe loonies in England, they were not considered loonies in the colonies. Now I pulled those numbers out of my rectum, but you get the point. End of digression.

Religion demands belief in spite of contrary evidence. It thrives on it, and it cannot help but foster the notion that belief without evidence is not only acceptable but honorable. People who hold their religious beliefs in spite of contrary evidence are going to be more likely to hold other beliefs in spite of contrary evidence--beliefs that will quite often include those that do actual harm to actual people.

Every time someone dies because they rejected real medicine in favor of psychic surgery, homeopathic quackery or some other non efficacious alternative claptrap then religion is partly to blame.

Every time John Edward or Sylvia Browne bilks someone out of their hard earned money, religion is partly to blame.

I don't have time to go into everything but I think there are basically three ways in which religion is harmful to the world at large.

<ul type="square"> It creates artificial divisions between peoples It fosters a culture of belief in spite of evidence It encourages people to believe that facts are mutable It provides a justification for breaking accepted rules by appeal to a higher power [/list]

These are all destructive forces in a society. They make the world a lesser place and cause actual concrete harm to living breathing people.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now if only 'Christian conscience' was in any way correlated with religiosity!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're my favorite poster on this whole site but this is a big fat L-O-L.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Bosnia Genocide - 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths

In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia.

Bosnia is one of several small countries that emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia, a multicultural country created after World War I by the victorious Western Allies. Yugoslavia was composed of ethnic and religious groups that had been historical rivals, even bitter enemies, including the Serbs (Orthodox Christians), Croats (Catholics) and ethnic Albanians (Muslims).

[/ QUOTE ]

For exhibit 2, I offer the crusades.
For exhibit 3, I offer Northern Island.
For exhibit 4, I offer the Catholic Church's policy on condoms.
For exhibit 5, I offer American enslavement and torture of blacks, backed by the bible
For exhibit 6, I offer the inquisition, and the divine right of evil kings.

Whether atheism can lead to greater state sponsored genocide is debatable. But as far as individuals go, a "Christian conscience" appears to make little difference to a person's willingness to commit war crimes or human rights violations.

[/ QUOTE ]

No True Scotsman LDO.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

is patently silly. I suppose a "select few" includes the millions of middle-eastern women subject to medieval shari'a law?

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot about them. Then again my point could be true even for many of them. Meaning that I think that most of these woman are happier now than they would be if their political freedom was greater but they were sure there was no God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now if only 'Christian conscience' was in any way correlated with religiosity!

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.

Many of us atheists have a 'christain' conscience, and many so called christains seem to relish a good mass murder or two.

chez

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot about them. Then again my point could be true even for many of them. Meaning that I think that most of these woman are happier now than they would be if their political freedom was greater but they were sure there was no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, on what can you possibly base this assertion on?

[David Sklansky]

Observation of the human condition. Of course it would be better if most people followed a combination of Judaism, RJTism, and Pair The Boardism. Also known as Sklanskyanity.

[doucy]

I haven't thought a whole lot about this, but two things that immediately come to mind:

1. About religion making the world a happier place: Religion inhibits choice. If you believe that fewer choices will keep people happier, then that means you must also believe that the unhappiness caused to Bob by other people's freedom of choice outweighs the happiness gained to Bob by his being able to make his own choices. This may or may not be true, I'm not sure. I bet it depends.

2. About David's assertion that many people would be less happy if they found out their god doesn't exist: I think that is true only in the short term. I could see many religious people being very shocked and unhappy in the wake of finding out their god doesn't exist. But in the long run I believe they would learn to embrace the freedoms that come along with atheism. They might need someone smart and atheist to explain it to them, but I think they'd get it.

[Peter666]

Of your six examples, only exhibit 2 has a direct correlation between religion and war. Yet even in that case, the religious leaders limited the actions taken, and even went so far as to excommunicate whole armies for violating principles.

The Bosnia genocide is an example of ethnic hatred, not religious. Both the Orthodox and Catholic clergy condemned any type of war crimes, so how could that be a motive for genocide? If there was no religion in the former Yugoslavia, they would still be killing each other, because that's what neighbours do now and then. And it would be even more vicious.

"For exhibit 3, I offer Northern Island." - Why have the Scots historically fought the English as well?

"For exhibit 4, I offer the Catholic Church's policy on condoms." - So thats why the US attacked Iraq.

"For exhibit 5, I offer American enslavement and torture of blacks, backed by the bible" - The bible provided a motive to end slavery, not promote it.

"For exhibit 6, I offer the inquisition, and the divine right of evil kings." How many died during the Inquisition over what period of time? The most overblown incident in history.

-The Divine right of Kings is political theory. The Church has historically fought to retain its rights over that of the temporal government.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Of your six examples, only exhibit 2 has a direct correlation between religion and war.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but you said:

[ QUOTE ]
A person with a Christian conscience is far less likely to commit war crimes than one who is without a Christian conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]
And that's just a joke. A large portion of Germans were Christian (Catholic in fact) while they were gassing Jews, raping Poles, and throwing babies on bayonets for sport. Your "Christian conscience" is a very fragile thing indeed, if indeed such a thing exists. My examples quite clearly show that it does not.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet even in that case, the religious leaders limited the actions taken, and even went so far as to excommunicate whole armies for violating principles.

[/ QUOTE ]
In some places, at some times. But the church has been a long way from taking a principled stand for human rights throughout the ages.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bosnia genocide is an example of ethnic hatred, not religious.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an example of some very devout Christians showing their Christian conscience at work. And the religious splits are undoubtedly are a part of the issue, though I agree ethnicity and history may be the main points.

[ QUOTE ]
Both the Orthodox and Catholic clergy condemned any type of war crimes, so how could that be a motive for genocide?

[/ QUOTE ]
Every church condemns that sort of thing in this modern age - it's political suicide not to.

[ QUOTE ]
If there was no religion in the former Yugoslavia, they would still be killing each other, because that's what neighbours do now and then. And it would be even more vicious.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is pure conjecture with zero evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
"For exhibit 3, I offer Northern Island." - Why have the Scots historically fought the English as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the Catholics vs the Protestants - it's a brilliant example of religious violence and hatred from the good Christian conscience. It's hard to argue ethnic divisions here.

[ QUOTE ]
"For exhibit 4, I offer the Catholic Church's policy on condoms." - So thats why the US attacked Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's why hundreds of thousands of people needlessly get AIDS and STDs, why children are orphaned. The good Christian conscience at work. How many times has the Catholic Church been wrong on matters of doctrine?

[ QUOTE ]
"For exhibit 5, I offer American enslavement and torture of blacks, backed by the bible" - The bible provided a motive to end slavery, not promote it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh dear.

[ QUOTE ]
"For exhibit 6, I offer the inquisition, and the divine right of evil kings." How many died during the Inquisition over what period of time? The most overblown incident in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the people who suffered needlessly and died horrible deaths felt that way too. Now I grant you it's not on par with the 20th century, but it's yet another brilliant example of the "Christian conscience"

[ QUOTE ]
-The Divine right of Kings is political theory. The Church has historically fought to retain its rights over that of the temporal government.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church has historically fought for power, just like everyone else, and the most pious examples of shining Godliness have been just as brutal as the rest in seeking that end.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times has the Catholic Church been wrong on matters of doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,

Please tell me you didn’t just ask Peter666 this question. This is like asking chez what is the difference between atheist and agnostic.

RJT

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Atheism Cause More Wars Than Theism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. It is very rare for an entity that’s capable of causing a war to hold an atheistic position, while common for such to hold a religious position.

Maybe you mean “is a nation with atheism as its national ‘religion’ more likely to cause a war than one with a theistic national religion?’ I would think the answer to this question is still no.

[ QUOTE ]
The better argument which I have not seen theists use is that religion STOPS more murders than it causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murky. In a society with an extreme religion I would say no.

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have cause and effect confused. Nice people have nice religious beliefs; nasty people have nasty religious beliefs. A person’s religious belief molds to fit them.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it shows a blinkered view of the position religion holds in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the world would be a much better place if religious people would admit that they are ASSUMING their god exists as opposed to proclaiming that they are sure he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I do not see why they have to admit anything. In fact I think thinking this rationally about the subject would likely be counterproductive.

[ QUOTE ]
With few exceptions (eg Iron Unkind), becoming an atheist won't change a moron into a non moron. And it will make most people pretty hopeless and maybe even dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s putting it a bit strongly.

[Peter666]

"And that's just a joke. A large portion of Germans were Christian (Catholic in fact) while they were gassing Jews, raping Poles, and throwing babies on bayonets for sport."

I must have been sick the day they covered throwing babies on bayonets in Catechism class.

First, the SS and those committing the crimes would be apostate and not practicing Catholics or Christians. They were pagans enamoured with social Darwinism. It was hatred for relgion that provided them with the ethic to treat people like animal specimins.

Also, it was Catholic and Christian German soldiers who attempted to assassinate Hitler.

But what is patently obvious to me is that people would be much worse if their religions did not provide moral boundaries.

Do atheists have ethics? Yes, everyone does. But what are these ethics: pursue pleasure within reason. But what is reasonable?: to pursue pleasure. So basically, any action is justifiable, including rape and murder, because it is not subject to a higher objective power, namely God.

Without God, there is no reason for me to love my neighbour as myself. Should I follow this principle even without God because it tends to my greater welfare? Of course not. My personal welfare would be much greater if I used and abused those who are weaker and less intelligent than me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"And that's just a joke. A large portion of Germans were Christian (Catholic in fact) while they were gassing Jews, raping Poles, and throwing babies on bayonets for sport."

I must have been sick the day they covered throwing babies on bayonets in Catechism class.

First, the SS and those committing the crimes would be apostate and not practicing Catholics or Christians. They were pagans enamoured with social Darwinism. It was hatred for relgion that provided them with the ethic to treat people like animal specimins.

Also, it was Catholic and Christian German soldiers who attempted to assassinate Hitler.

But what is patently obvious to me is that people would be much worse if their religions did not provide moral boundaries.

Do atheists have ethics? Yes, everyone does. But what are these ethics: pursue pleasure within reason. But what is reasonable?: to pursue pleasure. So basically, any action is justifiable, including rape and murder, because it is not subject to a higher objective power, namely God.

Without God, there is no reason for me to love my neighbour as myself. Should I follow this principle even without God because it tends to my greater welfare? Of course not. My personal welfare would be much greater if I used and abused those who are weaker and less intelligent than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I already said "No True Scotsman LDO" ten posts ago.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have cause and effect confused. Nice people have nice religious beliefs; nasty people have nasty religious beliefs. A person’s religious belief molds to fit them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also hold to the common observation that most people adopt the religion they were brought up in?

PairTheBoard

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"For exhibit 3, I offer Northern Island." - Why have the Scots historically fought the English as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the Catholics vs the Protestants - it's a brilliant example of religious violence and hatred from the good Christian conscience. It's hard to argue ethnic divisions here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholics in Ireland are ethnically Irish. The Protestants are ethnically Scots and English.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Meaning that I think that most of these woman [in fundamentalist islamic countries] are happier now than they would be if their political freedom was greater but they were sure there was no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this based in anything but the unwarranted assumption that atheists are unhappy?

[Piers]

Yes, but whatever the label it tends to get personlised.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have cause and effect confused. Nice people have nice religious beliefs; nasty people have nasty religious beliefs. A person’s religious belief molds to fit them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also hold to the common observation that most people adopt the religion they were brought up in?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but whatever the label it tends to get personlised.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting observation and one I tend to agree with - at least to some extent - now that you mention it. Funny. I have the feeling it is radical notion to a lot of people here.

PairTheBoard

[MaxWeiss]

Do you have any statistical basis for this reasoning??? At the outset it sounds good, but then you have all the fanatics and relgious wars which IMHO are really likely to skew the stats in the opposite direction from what you're saying. But if you bother to look it up, we could know for sure.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting observation and one I tend to agree with - at least to some extent - now that you mention it. Funny. I have the feeling it is radical notion to a lot of people here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that people bring their morals to their religion is well understood. Having 100K baptisians you'll find each will morph the religion toward their own psychological needs and underlying moral tendencies. Arrogant bullies will find justification as will kind and generous people find encouragement.

Pretty hard for it to be otherwise since we're dealing with people not robots.

luckyme

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does Atheism Cause More Wars Than Theism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. It is very rare for an entity that’s capable of causing a war to hold an atheistic position

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Communists and the Nazis?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting observation and one I tend to agree with - at least to some extent - now that you mention it. Funny. I have the feeling it is radical notion to a lot of people here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that people bring their morals to their religion is well understood. Having 100K baptisians you'll find each will morph the religion toward their own psychological needs and underlying moral tendencies. Arrogant bullies will find justification as will kind and generous people find encouragement.

Pretty hard for it to be otherwise since we're dealing with people not robots.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it happens. But all you're saying is that adoption of a religion has little to no effect on Some people. You might say they have adopted the trappings of the religion without any real conversion of the heart. But this observation actually argues against the criticism of Religion we often see getting made. That criticism being that the Established Religion these people adopt is the cause of their bad behaviour. This observation retorts that it's the nature those people bring to the Established Religion that causes the bad behavior. Certainly Bullies need no excuse to be Bullies. They may ignore the teachings of the Established Religion however they need to in order to continue being Bullies. But they were plenty good at being Bullies to begin with.

Furthermore, this only happens with Some people. Often times, Bullies who adopt a Religion of peace Do have a conversion of the heart and become much more peaceful. I've seen this happen many times.

So the Net Effect of this favors the Sklansky-Probability-Meter reading.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you have some evidence of that. Religion seems more like a reinforcement tool and there is evidence that religion is one of the best ways to get good people to do bad things. at least that's what the claim that it's not the religion that causes the wars it's politicians using religion is telling us ( and that is a common theist position on the matter) perhaps even in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
And this would be even more true if a few specific pesky religions changed their ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, and if we don't count male multiple murderers then the odds a murderer is a woman increases. Point being?

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

Here's an example I don't think a lot of people know about. The Tibetans. Prior to around 800 AD (I think) the Tibetans were one of the most warlike people in the area. War was something of a national sport. Suddenly they adopted a form of Buddhism on a national scale. Almost overnight, historically speaking, their society transformed from one of the most warlike around to one of the most peaceful.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

Hiya ptb,

Even more significant is the example of emperor Ashoka Ashoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka).

Of course, Buddhists are atheists. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example I don't think a lot of people know about. The Tibetans. Prior to around 800 AD (I think) the Tibetans were one of the most warlike people in the area. War was something of a national sport. Suddenly they adopted a form of Buddhism on a national scale. Almost overnight, historically speaking, their society transformed from one of the most warlike around to one of the most peaceful.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
very interesting to read about the history of tibet but I don't think it helps with the OP, not least because before they were budhist they were still religous.

However, if the op claimed that there wold be less war if budhism (religous or philosophical) was more widespread then I would agree.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure it happens. But all you're saying is that adoption of a religion has little to no effect on Some people.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. It may have effects on them, but it'll lean to their innate tendencies. 'Innate' being a blend of nuture-nature at this level. Most won't have a 'pre-religion' state naturally , so the 'nuture' part includes their parents spin of the local religion.

[ QUOTE ]
You might say they have adopted the trappings of the religion without any real conversion of the heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be both unfair and untrue. Not too many religious people are phonies about it, even the ones that are not deep into it. That doesn't mean they practice what they preach, but they likely believe what they preach is the way it 'should' be.

[ QUOTE ]
But this observation actually argues against the criticism of Religion we often see getting made. That criticism being that the Established Religion these people adopt is the cause of their bad behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once a person believes their subjective truths are god-sourced and not accountable to their reason they are freer to do deeds they wouldn't do if they didn't have that cover. I'm not just referring to the "god told me to kill him" extremes, it's inherent in the nature of religious conviction. Similarly, they are subject to persuasion by leaders they admire along religious lines to do acts they wouldn't do if their foreman at work asked them to.

[ QUOTE ]
This observation retorts that it's the nature those people bring to the Established Religion that causes the bad behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two people of the same sect - one is on a campaign to bar gays from x, the other is on a fundraiser for the homeless. They may or may not have been involved so hands-on in their causes if they'd have been raised in another religion but they are both strengthening their 'innate' directions with their religion. You end up with schisms in religions partly along these lines.. 'gay pastors or not' etc. If they were getting their beliefs from the religion, the 'same' sect yet, why such schisms?

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly Bullies need no excuse to be Bullies. They may ignore the teachings of the Established Religion however they need to in order to continue being Bullies. But they were plenty good at being Bullies to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even on here you must see that they don't 'ignore' the teachings, they claim those 'are' the teachings. When you're dealing in metaphors up to you navel, then each type finds their 'truth' in the same religion. It's an enabler, one that allows each of them to hide behind "but, but, it's my belief, my religion, ..."
Subjective trumps objective ... didn't you tell me that?

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya ptb,

Even more significant is the example of emperor Ashoka Ashoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka).

Of course, Buddhists are atheists. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

True they don't have God in their Religion. But it's still a religion. They make statements about reality that can only be realized by way of subjective experience.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Subjective trumps objective ... didn't you tell me that?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I never said that. Generally just the other way around, when the objective is available.

As for the rest of what you said, there is "some" truth to it. But it's not the whole truth. I think you may be letting Your subjective trump the objective here. On the other hand, that may be my subjective. The problem is that the objective is hard to come by for these issues.

When that happens we tend to rely on the subjective as I think you have done. Then there is the other alternative. We could just rely on the Sklansky-Probability-Meter.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
True they don't have God in their Religion. But it's still a religion. They make statements about reality that can only be realized by way of subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care whether you call it a religion or not. It depends on your definition of it. Regarding the statements "they" {?} make, you are wrong. Here is a small extract from the "Buddhist Dictionary - Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Nyanatiloka - Freewin &amp; Co - 1972) for the entry "Anatta" (which is one of the most fundamental Buddhist tenet):

...The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-Entity, soul, or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls...

So much for subjective experience! Of course, in a context of non-understanding, or a worldling (non-enlightened), view one may refer to a self by language convention. That self is however completely illusory and therefore could not be the agent or initiator of any realization. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example I don't think a lot of people know about. The Tibetans. Prior to around 800 AD (I think) the Tibetans were one of the most warlike people in the area. War was something of a national sport. Suddenly they adopted a form of Buddhism on a national scale. Almost overnight, historically speaking, their society transformed from one of the most warlike around to one of the most peaceful.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
very interesting to read about the history of tibet but I don't think it helps with the OP, not least because before they were budhist they were still religous.

However, if the op claimed that there wold be less war if budhism (religous or philosophical) was more widespread then I would agree.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave two other examples earlier in this thread where the supplanting religion happened to be Christianity. No more Aztec human sacrifices. No more Slaughter in the Roman Colosseum. The general principal is that there is an established Historical Trend for old Religions to be refined or supplanted by new ones which convert people to more peaceful ways. I think this shows Religion to have been a civilizing Force in History. To deny this is to assert that the earliest religions were the cause of primitive human barbarism. Looking at our evolutionary cousins, I don't think chipanzees need religion to make war on each other like they do out in nature. I imagine the earliest humans were pretty savage as well.


PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care whether you call it a religion or not. It depends on your definition of it. Regarding the statements "they" {?} make, you are wrong. Here is a small extract from the "Buddhist Dictionary - Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Nyanatiloka - Freewin &amp; Co - 1972) for the entry "Anatta" (which is one of the most fundamental Buddhist tenet):

...The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-Entity, soul, or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether possible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls...

So much for subjective experience! Of course, in a context of non-understanding, or a worldling (non-enlightened), view one may refer to a self by language convention. That self is however completely illusory and therefore could not be the agent or initiator of any realization.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Midge,

You and Pairtheboard are going back and forth here and I wanted to point out that I think the two of you are comparing apples to oranges. PTB began the discussion by talking about Tibetan Buddhism, which is altogether different from the Buddhism you are talking about. TB believes in a soul that is capable of reincarnating ( in a western sense of the word). The mainstream Buddhism that you refer to, does not. At least this is my understanding of the two.

[MidGe]

Hiya Yukoncpa,

All my in-depth study of Tibetan Buddhism tells me differently. Most Tibetan Buddhist sects however distinguish between conventional language and language used to describe reality. Many new-agey type books about Tibetan Buddhism, OTOH, seem to support the view of a soul. This view came about with the very early translators to western language (namely Annie Besant and cohorts, of theosophical fame, as they were trying to vindicate their a priory beliefs).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example I don't think a lot of people know about. The Tibetans. Prior to around 800 AD (I think) the Tibetans were one of the most warlike people in the area. War was something of a national sport. Suddenly they adopted a form of Buddhism on a national scale. Almost overnight, historically speaking, their society transformed from one of the most warlike around to one of the most peaceful.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
very interesting to read about the history of tibet but I don't think it helps with the OP, not least because before they were budhist they were still religous.

However, if the op claimed that there wold be less war if budhism (religous or philosophical) was more widespread then I would agree.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave two other examples earlier in this thread where the supplanting religion happened to be Christianity. No more Aztec human sacrifices. No more Slaughter in the Roman Colosseum. The general principal is that there is an established Historical Trend for old Religions to be refined or supplanted by new ones which convert people to more peaceful ways. I think this shows Religion to have been a civilizing Force in History. To deny this is to assert that the earliest religions were the cause of primitive human barbarism. Looking at our evolutionary cousins, I don't think chipanzees need religion to make war on each other like they do out in nature. I imagine the earliest humans were pretty savage as well.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make your case as it may be that the desire for peace civilised religons. The driving force is the discovery that we actually prefer not being at war.

Your case is only a defense against religon being the cause of war which i agree with anyway.

chez

[Zeno]

Just some general comments about some subjects brought up in this thread.

There has never been (and I think anthropologists would agree) an atheist/agnostic society or completely secular culture on this planet, in any large organized form, and historical and presently certainly no nation state fits this description. The often-repeated canard that the Nazis or the Soviet Union or the Chinese fit this category is simple not true and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. A veneer of propaganda by the state may make the pretension that atheism is the state ‘religion’ but in practical terms this is just so much hooey to 90 % of the people. In addition, religion, broadly defined (which would include all forms of superstition and mythology), is as ubiquitous to every human society as dancing and music – it is fundamental to the human condition. It will always remain so.


[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what Bertrand Russell would say to the above statement? Has religion done more harm or good for humanity overall? Does the harm caused by the damage to and the propagation of bad and poor thinking habits and the fostering of credulity, intolerance, and mythologies been outweighed by making people act better or be more moral?


[ QUOTE ]
I think the world would be a much better place if religious people would admit that they are ASSUMING their god exists as opposed to proclaiming that they are sure he exists

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps a better way to say this is: I think the world would be a better place if organized religions and their religious adherents would practice more tolerence.

But that would be anathmea to many religious groups, some very powerful.

-Zeno

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya Yukoncpa,

All my in-depth study of Tibetan Buddhism tells me differently. Most Tibetan Buddhist sects however distinguish between conventional language and language used to describe reality. Many new-agey type books about Tibetan Buddhism, OTOH, seem to support the view of a soul. This view came about with the very early translators to western language (namely Annie Besant and cohorts, of theosophical fame, as they were trying to vindicate their a priory beliefs).


[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, thanks Midge. I've studied Tao by reading books, but, I'm afraid to admit, I've studied Buddhism by watching the History Channel. You've actually helped me by causing me to look and hear things with a more critical eye. Your response was actually something that I suspected and wondered about, but was too lazy to do further research. So thank you again.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True they don't have God in their Religion. But it's still a religion. They make statements about reality that can only be realized by way of subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care whether you call it a religion or not. It depends on your definition of it. Regarding the statements "they" {?} make, you are wrong. Here is a small extract from the "Buddhist Dictionary - Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Nyanatiloka - Freewin &amp; Co - 1972) for the entry "Anatta" (which is one of the most fundamental Buddhist tenet):

...The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-Entity, soul, or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls...

So much for subjective experience! Of course, in a context of non-understanding, or a worldling (non-enlightened), view one may refer to a self by language convention. That self is however completely illusory and therefore could not be the agent or initiator of any realization. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


This is from the Wikipedia entry for "Anatta"
[ QUOTE ]
In Buddhist philosophy, anatta or anatman (Sanskrit) refers to "non-self" or "absence of separate self". One scholar describes it as "...meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things...". What is normally thought of as the "self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas"). This concept has, from early times, been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day. In the Pali suttas and the related agamas (referred to collectively below the nikayas) the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five skandhas of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or soul (atman) gives rise to unhappiness.

Another understanding of anatta (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures) insists that the five "skandhas" (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed "not the Self", since they are doomed to mutation and dissolution, but that, in contrast, the eternal buddha nature deep within each being is the supramundane True Self—although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching awakening ("bodhi").

Anatta, along with dukkha and anicca, is one of the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all phenomena.



[/ QUOTE ]

A "supramundane True Self" which is "the eternal buddha nature deep within each being" where "realisation is only fully gained on reaching awakening ("bodhi")", sounds like a religion to me.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
A "supramundane True Self" which is "the eternal buddha nature deep within each being" where "realisation is only fully gained on reaching awakening ("bodhi")", sounds like a religion to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a religion to me too.. but I cannot find any reference to such entity in neither the Theravadin's (oldest), Mahayana's, or even Vajrayana's (TB) canonical writings. I, of course stand to be corrected. I would favour my source of definition from yours, but, as I said, show me a quote from any of the canonical writings, that say so and I will have found a contradiction in those texts, the first about Anatta! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The only thing I can think about is small sect redcently originating from Taiwan that hold such beliefs as well as the belief in a paradise. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Because of they disregard of Anatta they are not considered Buddhist by the three main branches (I do not mean individual sects here, but the three major branches) of Buddhism which do have regular ecumenical meetings. Of course, everyone has the right to call him/herself Buddhist, or christian, for that matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TB believes in a soul that is capable of reincarnating ( in a western sense of the word). The mainstream Buddhism that you refer to, does not. At least this is my understanding of the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

All my in-depth study of Tibetan Buddhism tells me differently. Most Tibetan Buddhist sects however distinguish between conventional language and language used to describe reality. Many new-agey type books about Tibetan Buddhism, OTOH, seem to support the view of a soul. This view came about with the very early translators to western language (namely Annie Besant and cohorts, of theosophical fame, as they were trying to vindicate their a priory beliefs).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Tibetan Buddhists say the "soul" is reincarnated. But they certainly believe in Reincarnation of some sort. The Dalai Lama is believed to be the reincarnation of Avalokitesvara.

Also, it's my understanding that the teachings of the original Buddha provided a way to get off the wheel of karma and reincarnation through awakening to the realization of the True Buddha Nature. So reincarnation was an element of the earliest form of the religion. Something like Hell for Christians. A thing to be saved from - so to speak.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example I don't think a lot of people know about. The Tibetans. Prior to around 800 AD (I think) the Tibetans were one of the most warlike people in the area. War was something of a national sport. Suddenly they adopted a form of Buddhism on a national scale. Almost overnight, historically speaking, their society transformed from one of the most warlike around to one of the most peaceful.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
very interesting to read about the history of tibet but I don't think it helps with the OP, not least because before they were budhist they were still religous.

However, if the op claimed that there wold be less war if budhism (religous or philosophical) was more widespread then I would agree.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave two other examples earlier in this thread where the supplanting religion happened to be Christianity. No more Aztec human sacrifices. No more Slaughter in the Roman Colosseum. The general principal is that there is an established Historical Trend for old Religions to be refined or supplanted by new ones which convert people to more peaceful ways. I think this shows Religion to have been a civilizing Force in History. To deny this is to assert that the earliest religions were the cause of primitive human barbarism. Looking at our evolutionary cousins, I don't think chipanzees need religion to make war on each other like they do out in nature. I imagine the earliest humans were pretty savage as well.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make your case as it may be that the desire for peace civilised religons. The driving force is the discovery that we actually prefer not being at war.

Your case is only a defense against religon being the cause of war which i agree with anyway.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it's a murky point. You can look closer at it though. In the case of Tibetan Buddhism, the new religion was imposed on the population from the top down. The general populous was violent and warlike before. The new element was the imposed practice of a new religion. The result was conversion of the populous to more peaceful ways. Doubtful they would have converted so quickly without the imposition of the new religion.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

How many unwanted pregnancies? How many miserable homosexuals? Estranged children? Blue-balled twenty-somethings? As long as we define harm narrowly enough, David wins, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my first ever QFMFT. If I could have escaped Christianity 10 years earlier my life would be immeasurably better.

The key distinction I guess is how one is religious. Picking and choosing the useful parts of a religion is pretty harmless. But when one honestly embraces a religion as the source of ultimate truth, it can have disastrous results.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "supramundane True Self" which is "the eternal buddha nature deep within each being" where "realisation is only fully gained on reaching awakening ("bodhi")", sounds like a religion to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a religion to me too.. but I cannot find any reference to such entity in neither the Theravadin's (oldest), Mahayana's, or even Vajrayana's (TB) canonical writings. I, of course stand to be corrected. I would favour my source of definition from yours, but, as I said, show me a quote from any of the canonical writings, that say so and I will have found a contradiction in those texts, the first about Anatta! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The only thing I can think about is small sect redcently originating from Taiwan that hold such beliefs as well as the belief in a paradise. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Because of they disregard of Anatta they are not considered Buddhist by the three main branches (I do not mean individual sects here, but the three major branches) of Buddhism which do have regular ecumenical meetings. Of course, everyone has the right to call him/herself Buddhist, or christian, for that matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Buddha Nature or Mahayana Buddhism disregards Anatta. Certainly the Buddha Nature is not restricted to a small sect in Tawain. It is a teaching of one of the two major branches of Buddhism today, Mahayana, which is practiced in China, Tibet, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.


From the Wikipedia entry for Buddha Nature:
[ QUOTE ]
Buddha-nature (originally in Sanskrit, Buddha-dhatu - "Buddha Element", "Buddha-Principle", Chinese: pinyin fó xìng) is a doctrine important for many schools of Mahayana Buddhism. The Buddha Nature or Buddha Principle (Buddha-dhatu) is taught to be a truly real, but internally hidden, eternal potency or immortal element within the purest depths of the mind, present in all sentient beings, for awakening and becoming a Buddha. In some Mahayana sutras it is equated with the eternal Buddhic Self, Essence or Soul (atman). However, Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamaka, presents a view that states that Buddha-nature is empty-nature. The Buddha-nature / Tathagatagarbha sutras insist, however, that what the Buddha-nature is empty of is not its own ever-enduring reality but impermanence, impurity, moral defects, and suffering - in other words, the painful constrictions and imperfections of samsara.


[/ QUOTE ]

References for the entry on Buddha Nature are:
----------------
Gethin, Rupert (1998). Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Hookham, Dr. Shenpen (tr.) (1998). The Shrimaladevi Sutra. Oxford: Longchen Foundation.
Powers, J. A. (2000). Concise Encyclopaedia of Buddhism.
Rawson, Philip (1991). Sacred Tibet. London, Thames and Hudson. ISBN 050081032X.
Yamamoto, Kosho (tr.) (1999–2000) The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in 12 volumes. London: Nirvana Publications
-------------------

Read the Wikipedia entry for yourself. Check the references. Also read the entries for Theravada, Mahayana, Buddhism, and Anatta and look at their references. Then tell me where Wikipedia has it wrong. Otherwise, in this case it looks like a well referenced source to me.




Maybe you don't consider Mahayana legitimate Buddhism, but millions around the world do. This is not a discussion of doctrinal purity but of Religion as it is being practiced by people and what the implications are for benefits to civilization.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you don't consider Mahayana legitimate Buddhism, but millions around the world do. This is not a discussion of doctrinal purity but of Religion as it is being practiced by people and what the implications are for benefits to civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

My last post on this thread about this question as it really is off topic. I am glad and will respond to any new thread on this if they contain statements that are not factual.

My post was only about doctrinal "facts". The fact that I may know a lot about the doctrinal aspects of Buddhism doesn't make me a buddhist, nor does it make me a good person.

Mahayana is one of the great tradition of Buddhism. In a certain way, one could nearly say, that it "extends" the doctrine of Anatta (Non-self) via its definitions of Sunyatta (Emptiness/Void). I have not read all the canons of Mahayanism, neither have I read all the canons of Theravadins (The Pali, earlier extent canons); these are more voluminous than about thirty bibles for the Theravadins alone. The total body of canonical texts is even more extensive in Mahayana.

The only thing I will say is that I have never heard any Mahayanist saying that No-Self was not part of the doctrine, except from the "Pure Land" sect, which call itself Mahayana but is not so recognized so by the majors, in part because of their problem with Anatta as well as their reliance on rites and rituals. By the way, re-incarnation is an unfortunate translation (for which we will thank the theosophists /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). There is no such word used as doctrinal in any canonical texts. The closest and most modern translation, to English, is the coined word "re-birth" which is to be understood as a causal relationship, rather than any passage of anything at all from one life to the next.

You may differ with me. As I said, I am questioning the doctrinal authority for such claims, not the superstitions and beliefs of the uneducated Buddhist at large.

By the way I don't care much who believes what about the Dalai Lama. I know of no claim made by the Dalai Lama that he is the re-incarnation of whatever. AFAIK, he has always dodged the question when it was directly asked of him. I surely don't know what he believes, but I suspect that he has no beliefs about that, if about anything at all, since his tradition is also one of the mutually recognized three major Buddhist traditions. If you know otherwise, I would like to have the quote in context.

Sorry to the OP for the hijack. My intention was only to correct errors in facts made about Buddhist doctrine.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
David, a little investigation to go along with your ideas, please ?

If you want the professional statistician version, The Journal of Religion and Society did a study:

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005%2D11.html)
[ QUOTE ]
Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies...

Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined...

Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis...

Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S...

[/ QUOTE ]
It goes on and on. We would really be better off without religion. You can do an amateur check yourself, using a ranking of secular and religious U.S. states as I did here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29961286&amp;postcount=77) and here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29716676&amp;postcount=122). Rates of murder, teen pregnancy, any number of social ills are consistently lower with lower rates of religiosity.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina"

The violence there can be attributed to nationalism or tribalism more than to religion. The religious ethic certainly restrains the combatants in Christian nations.

[/ QUOTE ]
None of the Abrahamic religions are a restraining influence. All have God (the ultimate authority) sanctioning killing in their holy books.

When God Sanctions Killing, People Listen (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070223143009.htm) (short version) (full study) (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/members/journal_issues/psinpress/bushman.pdf)

[ QUOTE ]
In the article, University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman and his colleagues suggest that scriptural violence sanctioned by God can increase aggression, especially in believers...

After reporting their religious affiliation and beliefs, the participants read a parable adapted from a relatively obscure passage in the King James Bible describing the brutal torture and murder of a woman, and her husband's subsequent revenge on her attackers. Half of the participants were told that the passage came from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament while the other half were told it was an ancient scroll discovered in an archaeological expedition.

In addition to the scriptural distinction, half of the participants from both the bible and the ancient scroll groups read an adjusted version that included the verse:

"The Lord commanded Israel to take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the LORD."

The participants were then placed in pairs and instructed to compete in a simple reaction task. The winner of the task would be able to "blast" his or her partner with noise up to 105 decibels, about the same volume as a fire alarm. The test measures aggression.

As expected, the Brigham Young students were more aggressive (i.e. louder) with their blasts if they had been told that the passage they had previously read was from the bible rather than a scroll. Likewise, participants were more aggressive if they had read the additional verse that depicts God sanctioning violence.

At the more secular Vrije Universiteit, the results were surprisingly similar. Although Vrije students were less likely to be influenced by the source of the material, they blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. This finding held true even for non-believers, though to a lesser extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

Those state comparisons are some good stuff. Looks like David got caught talking out of his ass again.

I love this quote from your Christian forums post:

"I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." -William H. Gascoyne

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Those state comparisons are some good stuff. Looks like David got caught talking out his ass again.

I love this quote from your Christian forums post:

"I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." -William H. Gascoyne

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/smile.gif


True morality is only possible in an atheist context. Faith in a supreme entity, by definition, demands a surrender of moral judgement!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assert your conclusions. Great argument technique.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

David, a little investigation to go along with your ideas, please ?


[/ QUOTE ]

With just a little more investigation you might have found this. (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25)

For those of you who don't have the time, the guy that wrote benjdm's cited article is by profession an illustrator of dinosaurs and has no known advanced degree in anything, certainly not in sociology or statistics.

Just a hint: The high murder rate in the U.S. is mostly in big cities, and mostly tied to drugs and gangs. The U.S. is not unusually high in other type crimes compared to atheist countries.

[NotReady]

This topic interested me a little so I did some very brief research on charitable giving. I stopped very soon because you quickly becomed bogged down in a statistical quagmire - the U.S. is either near the top or near the bottom in charity.

One favorable article that seems reasonable is here. (http://www.bloggernews.net/12585)

But on this one some expert help is needed. I know the general concensus is that the U.S. is one of the most generous countries - what does that do to this thread's thesis if true?

[PairTheBoard]

I think Amish communities probably have a pretty low crime rate.

A followup to NotReady's link on Gregory S. Paul’s study:

by George H. Gallup, Jr. (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-061-r)

who I gather is in fact Gallup of the famous Gallup polls. So I guess he knows something about polling.

From the Link:
----------------------
There are many socio-economic data series that vary widely across the eighteen countries and that plausibly have a significant impact on social conditions, e.g., income distribution, proportion of GDP spent through government, social and cultural cohesion, fertility and mortality rates, age structure of the population, etc., etc. Failure to look at these and other exogenous data would introduce bias into the results.

In other words, Paul has made strong claims about the effect of religion upon society without examining all the other factors that might explain the phenomena he wrote about.

The Committed

What about the second point? In attempting to assess the impact of religion on the American populace, one must, of course, immediately acknowledge the fact that a great deal of evil in the world has been perpetrated in the name of religion by fanatics and persons with distorted agendas.

On the whole, however, survey findings based on carefully designed scales and penetrating questions show that spiritual commitment serves both as a brake on anti-social activities and a powerful impetus to pro-social, even sacrificial, behavior and attitudes. And the deeper the spiritual commitment, the more pronounced the effects.

Indeed, a mountain of survey data from the Gallup and other survey organizations shows that when educational background and other variables are held constant, persons who are “highly spiritually committed” are far less likely to engage in antisocial behavior than those less committed. They have lower rates of crime, excessive alcohol use, and drug addiction than other groups.

On the other hand, the “highly spiritually committed” are more hopeful about the future and experience greater joy in life. They contribute more time helping people who are burdened with physical and emotional needs. They are less likely to be racist, and are more giving and forgiving.

They have bucked the trend of many in society toward narcissism and hedonism. Teens with deep spiritual commitment are not only far less likely to get into trouble, but are more likely than their counterparts to be happy, be goal-oriented, be hopeful about the future, see a reason for their existence, succeed better academically, and serve others.

It has been well established by surveys for the non-profit group Independent Sector that religious convictions have spurred much of the volunteerism in our nation. Remarkably, one American in two gives two or three hours of each week to some volunteer cause. Often the cause is church-related or church-sponsored, with many believing that God has called them personally to it. One could say that if it were not for the church’s role in dealing with many of our social ills, the tax burden on the populace would be crushing.
--------------------------

So if Gallup is right, it looks like "Spiritual Commitment" is the determining factor. I suppose you could argue that without Religion there would be just as many people who are essentially - in some way - spiritually committed. That doesn't make common sense to me though.

PairTheBoard

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Amish communities probably have a pretty low crime rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, besides a drastically under-reported and widespread incidence of rape and incest, this is true.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, a mountain of survey data from the Gallup and other survey organizations shows that when educational background and other variables are held constant, persons who are “highly spiritually committed” are far less likely to engage in antisocial behavior than those less committed. They have lower rates of crime, excessive alcohol use, and drug addiction than other groups.

On the other hand, the “highly spiritually committed” are more hopeful about the future and experience greater joy in life. They contribute more time helping people who are burdened with physical and emotional needs. They are less likely to be racist, and are more giving and forgiving.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does "spiritual commitment" have to do with religion? Of course people who self identify as "highly spiritually committed" are going to be non violent and helpful, whether they're Buddhists, Muslims, Christians or Atheists (though probably to a lesser degree in Christians).

Also, people who are that way inclined already seek out Buddhism or other religiously affirming experiences.

In short, that article has zero relevance to this debate and does nothing to debunk the pretty solid evidence against religion in this thread.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So if Gallup is right, it looks like "Spiritual Commitment" is the determining factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gallup gives us a nice example of the "no real scotsman" fallacy. He explains that the data doesn't look bad at all if one only counts the 'real' christians. I don't doubt that monks are less of a problem than priests when it comes to lawbreaking, but if we are going to discuss behavior of a group don't you have to include them all? Not according to Gallup-

[ QUOTE ]
A large majority of Americans believe there is a moral decline in the nation, and survey statistics support their concern. A majority of teenagers, for example, admit to having cheated on a test or tests, and two-thirds indicate that they would lie to achieve a business objective.

How does one account for these troubling findings in the face of high levels of religiosity?

[/ QUOTE ]

He accounts for it by saying that 90% of the religions people aren't really committed to their religion and the problems are more from these pseudoreligous people .

cheeez, luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But on this one some expert help is needed. I know the general concensus is that the U.S. is one of the most generous countries - what does that do to this thread's thesis if true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing unless you can prove that people are only giving because of their faith in god.

I guess you could argue that at least some people are giving to charity because they think god wants them to... but that is just a variation on the psychological payoff that all people get from giving. Whether the payoff is god's grace or something else doesn't change the fact that most people are being generous for selfish reasons.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

David, a little investigation to go along with your ideas, please ?


[/ QUOTE ]

With just a little more investigation you might have found this. (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25)

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I'm glad I did my own statistics finding, then, comparing U.S. states to U.S. states. I assumed a 'Journal of Religion and Society' would hold a high standard of rigor to an article submitted to it, especially one that would tend to argue against religion, but it appears I was in error.
[ QUOTE ]
Just a hint: The high murder rate in the U.S. is mostly in big cities, and mostly tied to drugs and gangs. The U.S. is not unusually high in other type crimes compared to atheist countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
Murder rates, violent crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, STD rates, etc., all positively correlate to religiosity when comparing U.S. states to U.S. states. I am no professional statistician but look at my other links and try it yourself. And that is including Nevada (and therefore Las Vegas) in the secular states.

[soon2bepro]

You're right, David. Religion through history has been and still is an effective method of control. Yes, it stops murders. It also turns people's attention and interests into becoming ants for the system, and sheep for the rulers. It certainly is effective.

It is incorrect what many atheists imply that theism causes more deaths than it prevents.

What a lot of atheists are correctly stating, however, is that in today's world, an atheist (someone who actively rejects theism, not because it hasn't been put before his eyes, but because he/she realized it's nonsense) is much less likely to commit a crime than a theist is.

In fact this is probably another sense in which religion is good for humanity. Not only does it somewhat control the masses, it also helps intelligent individuals become more rational and skeptic, by giving them a sample to compare sound arguments and empyrical evidence to nonsense and fairytales.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing unless you can prove that people are only giving because of their faith in god.


[/ QUOTE ]

The answers in this thread are palpably absurd. It's why I don't bother debating on this forum much.

As to your point, do you also require proof that all the evil supposedly done in the name of religion has to be proven a result of their faith?

[benjdm]

NotReady, after a little more digging, the statisticians did weigh in on the study here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10440939/).

[ QUOTE ]
MSNBC.com asked three statistical and assessment experts to review the methodology Paul used in compiling his paper, which is published in the current issue of The Journal of Religion and Society under the title “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.”

By and large, these experts say, the critics are wrong. Paul’s study holds up. But they also say the critics have a point.

Strictly speaking — and that is the only way academics speak — Paul’s study marshals reasonable data that credibly demonstrates, under its terms, that the United States is the most faithful of the 18 Western democracies it studies. It furthermore demonstrates that it scores at or near the bottom of a variety of indicators of social dysfunction, including homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, teen pregnancy and abortion...

That’s a crucial point, the experts said. All Paul is highlighting is a correlation. Nowhere does he explicitly argue that the United States’ higher rate of religiosity is a cause of the higher rate of social problems, the sin of which he is most commonly accused...

On those terms, then, Paul’s paper “is basically sound,” Wasserman said in an e-mail analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]


Edited for spelling.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, after a little more digging, the statisticians did weigh in on the study here.


[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the follow-up. It hardly changes the criticisms, though. I think we may see more studies along this line in the future. Your link said Gallup is preparing a thorough response.

I will only point out that your link focused on homicide and other social problems that can easily be explained by the drug culture and gangs in big cities. At the very least nothing has been shown scientifically supporting Paul's contentions - which he kinda downplayed in the link, claiming he was making no statements about religion causing social ills. That seems disingenous, to be kind about it.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I will only point out that your link focused on homicide and other social problems that can easily be explained by the drug culture and gangs in big cities.

[/ QUOTE ]
Europe has big cities too.
[ QUOTE ]
At the very least nothing has been shown scientifically supporting Paul's contentions - which he kinda downplayed in the link, claiming he was making no statements about religion causing social ills. That seems disingenous, to be kind about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paul is definitely a partisan. But if Sklansky is correct, there should be a negative correlation between religiosity and murder, or religiosity and violent crimes, etc. There isn't. A counter-claim that without religion people tend to act better is not firmly supported by the data (too little), but the claim that with religion people tend to act better is less supported.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Europe has big cities too.


[/ QUOTE ]

But do they have the same kind of drug and gang situation? I don't know. Your link also said Paul's data was uncertain. So who knows?

I should also say I don't defend religion in general. That definition would include, for instance, OT Molech worshippers who burned their infants alive, and Aztecs and Mayans, who engaged in human sacrifice. The 1st and 2nd commandments are basically against religion in general. But in Paul's study, he's clearly homing in on Christianity. I think we got rid of the last Aztec a while back.

[Taraz]

About the whole correlation between societal health and religiosity, doesn't it seem more likely that a less healthy society will be more religious? Isn't this the more likely direction of the causation?

If you're living in a really crappy area with lots of crime, hunger, and death wouldn't you be more likely to believe in a God who could rescue you from these terrible conditions? If you are wealthy and secure, there is much less of a role for God to play in your life.

[Lestat]

I first thought this to be an uncharacteristically poor post by David. A quick check into our nations prisons, murders rates, and perpetrators of violent crimes, points to a population that is predominantly religious and god-fearing. There is certainly not a single scrap of evidence to suggest that non-belief in god increases the chance for violence, or that belief, makes one a nicer person. But after a re-read of David's post, his comments start to make sense.

Basically, a world full of dumb atheists would be far more dangerous than a world full of dumb theists (a problem we thankfully don't have at the moment, because higher IQ people tend to lean towards atheism). Belief in - and fear of - a fictitious alpha-male in the sky, serves to keep many lower IQ people in line.

So if all the lower IQ people of the world were to all of a sudden become atheists, does this mean the world would be worse off? I've never thought about it in this light before, but the potential answer scares me.

Am I misunderstanding David's point?

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
About the whole correlation between societal health and religiosity, doesn't it seem more likely that a less healthy society will be more religious? Isn't this the more likely direction of the causation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly. We would have to get some statisticians interested in figuring out the causation rigorously. I can't currently back up my opinion with enough solid empirical data to make a great case.

The idea that religion is necessary for a safe, non-violent, or healthy society is false. It may seem intuitive but some looking at real-world secular societies quickly shows that it is false. Mr. Sklansky is simply wrong on this one.

Besides which, the idea of whether or not religion is a net positive or a net negative is of secondary importance. Whether the religion is likely to be true or not is the first importance (especially since its truth will have a direct impact on how you evaluate moral behavior):

Atheist: Your religion is false. Metaphysical naturalism is the most well-supported worldview.

Theist: Even if it is false, it is necessary for people to be happy and moral ! You should not try and talk people out of their religion !

Atheist: No, it isn't. You can find at least equally moral and happy societies with little to no religion. It is not likely to be true, not necessary for people to be happy, and not necessary for people to be moral. It is useless or worse than useless.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that religion is necessary for a safe, non-violent, or healthy society is false. It may seem intuitive but some looking at real-world secular societies quickly shows that it is false. Mr. Sklansky is simply wrong on this one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it is not a necessity. In my view, there just isn't really a causal link going from religious belief to health of a society in today's world.

I do believe, however, that religion was a positive force for change historically speaking. If you look at it from a sociological perspective, many religions are a reaction to present societal conditions. This is most easily seen in the case of Islam. There really is no question that it has had a positive effect on the Middle East and parts of Africa. I know it's hard to believe, but it is true.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
There really is no question that it has had a positive effect on the Middle East and parts of Africa

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe way back in the 800-1300timeframe

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There really is no question that it has had a positive effect on the Middle East and parts of Africa

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe way back in the 800-1300timeframe

[/ QUOTE ]

I would extend the latter date a little, but yeah. I'm just saying that it was a useful movement that has probably outworn it's usefulness.

Religion is capable of causing changes on a large scale.

[JussiUt]

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been discussed already. It probably has.

Just few points. Someone said that religion makes people nicer and that Christian religion makes someone less likely to commit atrocities than say some other faith. What you have to keep in mind is that today's christianity is not what it says in the scripture. It is being interpreted all the time. And where does this interpretation come from? From inside us, from our own ethic believes, not from religion. Our ethics do not come from religion, from scriptures.

"Good people do good things because they are good. Bad people do bad things because they're bad. Good people do bad things because of religion." I don't remember who said that but it's generally speaking a valid point. Of course you have to change "religion" with "irrational belief" to be able to fit in nazism etc.

What makes Europe such an enlightened place compared to rest of the world or should I say what makes the Western world based on old European ideas so enlightened is naturally...the European idea of Enlightment. One could argue that Christianity is more supportive than other religions to breed such progressive ideas but I think that isn't supportable by evidence.

Now I'm just rambling but I guess what my main point is that religion in itself (beliefs in dogmas, phenoms or creatures with no evidence) does not make one good. All religions hold universal ethical values and I think nobody can disagree with that. I am positive that we can live by these ethical values without these dogmas and that the human mind is not that weak to need comfort from religious myths. Yes, some people do change when "they find God" but some do not. Some change for the worse and most people live their lives based on their common sense and humanistic values and they interprete their religion in such a way that accomodates their concepts of good and bad. Religion is a one huge divider among the global society and to say we need that illusion for being able to be better persons is I think false and also dangerous because then enlightened people accept religion and continue to give it special treatment which it does not deserve.

[joes28]

man i dont know. definetly not more wars, maybe about the same percentage.

[andyfox]

in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be.

I agree with the first clause. I would much rather have a group of people following me down a dark alley who just came out of church than a group who didn't.

I'm not sure about the second clause. Sure seems religion has given people not just an excuse, but a reason for living mean lives, a driving animus that they would otherwise not have.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. Forget the argument that the atheistic tyrants who massively murdered did not do it in the name of atheism and the religious tyrants who murdered somewhat fewer did it in the name of their religion. The better argument which I have not seen theists use is that religion STOPS more murders than it causes.

Technically you could say that this doesn't mean that atheism CAUSE the problems. Semantics. Its like saying that if atheists are less likely to save African children than theists, atheism doesn't cause their deaths. Bottom line is that in this world religion makes more people nice who wouldn't ordinarily be than it makes people mean who ordinarily wouldn't be. And this would be even more true if a few specific pesky religions changed their ways.

Atheists who harp on how the world would be a better place if people were not religious are almost certainly wrong. It would only be better for a select few. Namely some of those with great potential who are being held back due to their beliefs.

I think the world would be a much better place if religious people would admit that they are ASSUMING their god exists as opposed to proclaiming that they are sure he exists. Because such proclamations are moronic, even more so if they claim that objective evidence points to their god being a heavy favorite over other versions of god or no god. But even if they won't make this concession the world is probably better off if most people are religious. With few exceptions (eg Iron Unkind), becoming an atheist won't change a moron into a non moron. And it will make most people pretty hopeless and maybe even dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]


What's a "god" and why are you using this word as though it is knowledge.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I first thought this to be an uncharacteristically poor post by David. A quick check into our nations prisons, murders rates, and perpetrators of violent crimes, points to a population that is predominantly religious and god-fearing. There is certainly not a single scrap of evidence to suggest that non-belief in god increases the chance for violence, or that belief, makes one a nicer person. But after a re-read of David's post, his comments start to make sense.

Basically, a world full of dumb atheists would be far more dangerous than a world full of dumb theists (a problem we thankfully don't have at the moment, because higher IQ people tend to lean towards atheism). Belief in - and fear of - a fictitious alpha-male in the sky, serves to keep many lower IQ people in line.

So if all the lower IQ people of the world were to all of a sudden become atheists, does this mean the world would be worse off? I've never thought about it in this light before, but the potential answer scares me.

Am I misunderstanding David's point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's called " the Depressed Swede Syndrome."

luckyme

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfounded assertion. For me raised Christian, it wasn't immediate, but I became more happy in my mid teens when I began to realize the nature of the absurdity of religious faith and the underlying motives. It freed me from the melancholy of following a dreadful dogma. I doubt I'm alone.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

'Bar Fights' is not a proper noun.
But then, neither is 'Religion'. I've been trying to Divine your capitalization Rules, But I admit That I can't.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

"But I learned something [from that bar fight] that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage… but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a ceasefire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today."

http://www.righttrack.us/2006/07/26/lessons-from-a-bar-fight/

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is the case in people and societies that were raised with religion.

People raised as atheists or apathetic theists tend to be braver and more pragmatic. Just as people raised in poverty tend not to get upset about a broken nail.

The real problem with your position is with kids, who have the ability to be courageous, moral people, but who the very religious are raising as soulless sheep.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is the case in people and societies that were raised with religion.

People raised as atheists or apathetic theists tend to be braver and more pragmatic. Just as people raised in poverty tend not to get upset about a broken nail.

The real problem with your position is with kids, who have the ability to be courageous, moral people, but who the very religious are raising as soulless sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly the majority of people in this world would lose more than they gain, psychologically speaking, if they had their god taken away from them. We agree on this. Whether many of them would be fine if they were never indoctrinated in the first place, your position, is another question. I think it depends on the state of the world.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think there's a huge number of people itching to do wrong but they don't because their religion tells them not to? Experience and my gut instinct (just as unsupportable as OP) tell me this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a huge number. And not itching to. But fewer still, do wrong because they think their religion tells them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. tells me this is not the case. Where are people massacring each other in the name of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed David's point. How many Bar Fights are started over Religion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

'Bar Fights' is not a proper noun.
But then, neither is 'Religion'. I've been trying to Divine your capitalization Rules, But I admit That I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you talk in a monotone or do you emphasize some words more than others? I post as if I'm having a conversation with you. I capitalize the words I would emphasize if I were speaking them. I'll often capitalize terms I consider especially important or which capture a concept and which I expect to continue to reference. Sometimes it's like a more subdued form of putting the words in quotes. I'll admit, it probably gets a little random Sometimes.



PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfounded assertion. For me raised Christian, it wasn't immediate, but I became more happy in my mid teens when I began to realize the nature of the absurdity of religious faith and the underlying motives. It freed me from the melancholy of following a dreadful dogma. I doubt I'm alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not alone kaj, but I think you're in the minority. The younger you are, the easier it is to accept. Imagine being well into your adult life, thinking you have this personal relationship with God, and that you're going to live forever after you die and all of a sudden... You realize it's all been a lie! Your entire worldview is shattered. That can be pretty devastating for the average person. In fact...

I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.

And wasn't Godboy very close to turning the corner, only to reaize he couldn't handle the truth?

[Lestat]

Yes, this is a huge problem. One that could potnentialy be avoided if people didn't indoctrinate their children so young.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bigger point is that so many people need to believe in God to avoid the melancholy that would follow (often with good reason) from a realization that he didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is the case in people and societies that were raised with religion.

People raised as atheists or apathetic theists tend to be braver and more pragmatic. Just as people raised in poverty tend not to get upset about a broken nail.

The real problem with your position is with kids, who have the ability to be courageous, moral people, but who the very religious are raising as soulless sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly the majority of people in this world would lose more than they gain, psychologically speaking, if they had their god taken away from them. We agree on this. Whether many of them would be fine if they were never indoctrinated in the first place, your position, is another question. I think it depends on the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the next generation would be better off?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly the majority of people in this world would lose more than they gain, psychologically speaking, if they had their god taken away from them. We agree on this. Whether many of them would be fine if they were never indoctrinated in the first place, your position, is another question. I think it depends on the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we stick to this world we don't have to guess. People's god's don't get taken away from them here, they voluntarily surrender them.
The OP claim was a more blanket statement that somehow religion makes people 'better'. There is no lack of atheist cultures in the world to look at and see if that is true.
Parts of Europe, Canada, Japan, even sections of the USA, for example. Do we see some rush into depression in those cases. Nope, just the opposite.

Sure, if we went into Alabama with a gun and scalpel and extracted their religion from them it could be a problem, but nobody did that to the people in Oregon and we still get the odd smile out of them.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely, you see the contradictions of your faith. You see the impossibilities of biblical claims. You see the tyranny of the OT. You see the opposing and circular logic that's needed to accept your faith. And even if you can't, you certainly must realize that Christianity can't be a favorite over all other religions combined.

That's the nature of logic I'm referring to. If you were able to look at your faith objectively, I'm sure you'd be as aghast as anyone. If you picked up a newspaper and read of a guy who killed his fiance, because she cheated on him before their wedding, do you deny that you'd disapprove? Yet, when the bible indicates this is not only acceptable, but SHOULD be done, you think nothing of it. Why? Why can't you look at it objectively and see it as the out-dated ridiculous nonsense that it is? This only touches on the length that religious people are willing to go in order to suspend their own logic and remain true to their faith.

[andyfox]

"Without God, there is no reason for me to love my neighbour as myself."

What does God have to do with it? I react to the world as I find it, I don't need God to explain it to me. I treat others with respect because it makes me feel good and because I figure it's the right thing to do. And I think God is a delusion.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely, you see the contradictions of your faith. You see the impossibilities of biblical claims. You see the tyranny of the OT. You see the opposing and circular logic that's needed to accept your faith. And even if you can't, you certainly must realize that Christianity can't be a favorite over all other religions combined.

That's the nature of logic I'm referring to. If you were able to look at your faith objectively, I'm sure you'd be as aghast as anyone. If you picked up a newspaper and read of a guy who killed his fiance, because she cheated on him before their wedding, do you deny that you'd disapprove? Yet, when the bible indicates this is not only acceptable, but SHOULD be done, you think nothing of it. Why? Why can't you look at it objectively and see it as the out-dated ridiculous nonsense that it is? This only touches on the length that religious people are willing to go in order to suspend their own logic and remain true to their faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely, you see the contradictions of your faith. You see the impossibilities of biblical claims. You see the tyranny of the OT. You see the opposing and circular logic that's needed to accept your faith. And even if you can't, you certainly must realize that Christianity can't be a favorite over all other religions combined.

That's the nature of logic I'm referring to. If you were able to look at your faith objectively, I'm sure you'd be as aghast as anyone. If you picked up a newspaper and read of a guy who killed his fiance, because she cheated on him before their wedding, do you deny that you'd disapprove? Yet, when the bible indicates this is not only acceptable, but SHOULD be done, you think nothing of it. Why? Why can't you look at it objectively and see it as the out-dated ridiculous nonsense that it is? This only touches on the length that religious people are willing to go in order to suspend their own logic and remain true to their faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesnt have much to do with PairtheBoard's religious views.

[Lestat]

So what IS the nature of what we are applying that logic to? I say it's reality. You say, it's what?....

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely, you see the contradictions of your faith. You see the impossibilities of biblical claims. You see the tyranny of the OT. You see the opposing and circular logic that's needed to accept your faith. And even if you can't, you certainly must realize that Christianity can't be a favorite over all other religions combined.

That's the nature of logic I'm referring to. If you were able to look at your faith objectively, I'm sure you'd be as aghast as anyone. If you picked up a newspaper and read of a guy who killed his fiance, because she cheated on him before their wedding, do you deny that you'd disapprove? Yet, when the bible indicates this is not only acceptable, but SHOULD be done, you think nothing of it. Why? Why can't you look at it objectively and see it as the out-dated ridiculous nonsense that it is? This only touches on the length that religious people are willing to go in order to suspend their own logic and remain true to their faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesnt have much to do with PairtheBoard's religious views.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've tried to provide in my posts are ways of looking at Spiritual matters which I think are illuminating. My most personal views are a work in progress and probably not the concern of this Forum.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
So what IS the nature of what we are applying that logic to? I say it's reality. You say, it's what?....

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to hijack David's topic here so I'm going to carry this over to your thread on Time where I think it's closer to being on-topic.

PairTheBoard

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
With few exceptions (eg Iron Unkind), becoming an atheist won't change a moron into a non moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty flattering to be considered a potential nonmoron by the second smartest poker book author.