The need for the debasement of religion

[Arioch]

@Syne --

These sorts of behavior will inevitably find other outlets if not for religion, and it can be argued that, for the most part, religion provides some restraint on these.

I'd say it's been a wash, at best.

 

[Syne]

I'd say it's been a wash, at best.

I don't see any evidence of that. How many times have we heard someone say, "if I weren't a Christian"? There is plenty of evidence that religion does help restrain the tendencies of people, as that is the whole point to their dogmas. Just because the extreme behavior of a minority of religious people is more visible and cannot be so restrained tells us nothing, as this behavior would be no better restrained under any other strictures, including secular.

But that's how propaganda works. Just take the most visible and undesirable actions of an extreme minority of any group and use it to characterize the whole group. Even if the undesirable behavior is known to have unrelated causes.

 

[aaqucnaona]

"blind faith, dogma, intolerance, prejudice and violence" & "Religion does nothing that is greater than its harms."

And that is true - we dont find religiously motivated generosity and love and care overwhelming the religiously motivate violence, misinformation and hatred.

As Yazata said, you neglect to acknowledge the majority of religious people in your hasty generalization of an extreme minority. You need to remember that over 80% of the world is religious, so if your generalization held up, you should expect to be affected on a daily basis, and much more than just your sensibilities about people expressing their beliefs.

The OP was not against moderates - it was specifically against the radicals and the need for them to become moderates.

"Intolerance, prejudice and violence" are not solely endemic to religion. These sorts of behavior will inevitably find other outlets if not for religion, and it can be argued that, for the most part, religion provides some restraint on these.

Agreed. That is one of the payments for with religion can be proud. But it cant even do THIS properly. Often in times of unrest, people realise that they dont need religion, they need police to stay in line. But the alternative - science, secular humanism and the usual corollary of greater and well informed knowledge and better sophistication in most fields of social occupation is much better. This alternative, represented in my vision for the future [3rd para onwards] involves not only the moderation of religious views but the secularisation of the world views of those involved.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I don't see any evidence of that. How many times have we heard someone say, "if I weren't a Christian"? There is plenty of evidence that religion does help restrain the tendencies of people, as that is the whole point to their dogmas. Just because the extreme behavior of a minority of religious people is more visible and cannot be so restrained tells us nothing, as this behavior would be no better restrained under any other strictures, including secular.

We dont see religious people like iraqis or irish being restrained in any way by religion, nor do we see religion make them loving, compassionate people. We do not need religion or a belief in God to adhere to social principles - we need policing.

But that's how propaganda works. Just take the most visible and undesirable actions of an extreme minority of any group and use it to characterize the whole group. Even if the undesirable behavior is known to have unrelated causes.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MODERATES. It is about the radicals and their worldview + a secularisation of society, which would come naturally if the radicals become moderates.

 

[Syne]

And that is true - we dont find religiously motivated generosity and love and care overwhelming the religiously motivate violence, misinformation and hatred.

Not so, this just a matter of the sensational, such as violence and hatred perpetrated by a minority, being much more visible than the good done by the majority. In amounts to what can be used better as an appeal to emotion.

The OP was not against moderates - it was specifically against the radicals and the need for them to become moderates.

No, you simply neglected to acknowledge religious moderates to further your argument for secularization (freedom from religion).

Agreed. That is one of the payments for with religion can be proud. But it cant even do THIS properly. Often in times of unrest, people realise that they dont need religion, they need police to stay in line. But the alternative - science, secular humanism and the usual corollary of greater and well informed knowledge and better sophistication in most fields of social occupation is much better. This alternative, represented in my vision for the future [3rd para onwards] involves not only the moderation of religious views but the secularisation of the world views of those involved.

Nothing can "do THIS properly", not even police, so it is biased to expect religion to do what nothing else can. And it does no good to widen the existing dichotomy only to advocate an overly idealized dystopia. And I characterize it as dystopian because your secularization is just a guise for "freedom from religion" which can only be accomplished by the removal of rights such as free speech.

We dont see religious people like iraqis or irish being restrained in any way by religion, nor do we see religion make them loving, compassionate people. We do not need religion or a belief in God to adhere to social principles - we need policing.

Broad and hasty generalizations, and more than a little prejudice. Yet again you seem to fall for characterizing some group based solely on the most visible, extreme minority. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1145.html#crime I assume you think most blacks are criminals as well? And policing doesn't promote morality. You can never imbue people will positive, personal character traits with the threat of force and penalty. That is all police can provide. Yet another indication that your "vision" is completely dystopian.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MODERATES. It is about the radicals and their worldview + a secularisation of society, which would come naturally if the radicals become moderates.

Moderation is not equivalent nor necessitated by secularization, nor vice versa. It is clear that your idea of secularization includes not only a moderation of religion but a marginalization toward the ends of "freedom from religion". So your secularization IS contrary to moderate religion.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Not so, this just a matter of the sensational, such as violence and hatred perpetrated by a minority, being much more visible than the good done by the majority. In amounts to what can be used better as an appeal to emotion.

But those minorities are real, and they are a cost to religion. They are much more influential, costly and powerful than what moderates can pay for - because they are radicals.

No, you simply neglected to acknowledge religious moderates to further your argument for secularization (freedom from religion).

If you got that impression, sorry, That is not what I meant. And freedom of religion must be coupled with be freedom from religion.

Nothing can "do THIS properly", not even police, so it is biased to expect religion to do what nothing else can.

But I only said that religion does a poorer job of it than the police.

And it does no good to widen the existing dichotomy only to advocate an overly idealized dystopia. And I characterize it as dystopian because your secularization is just a guise for "freedom from religion" which can only be accomplished by the removal of rights such as free speech.

NO - it can be accomplised as I said -
"There are three other ways I can think of. First is powerful and well-informed attack with things we know to be true - like evolution. Second is working towards removal of taboos, social acceptance of non-belief among the masses and open discussion and debate on issues of God and religion. The third is the secularisation of the Government and the economy - removing "God" from public addresses and campaigns and withdrawl of special economic previledges to religious institutions. The education is something to be worked on now, ASAP. First and second are already being done and must increase their outreach. When they reach a crtitical mass, the third step would become possible. The issue would then we essentially resolved - with absolute belief in god or religious dogmatism debased to the level of ufology."

Broad and hasty generalizations, and more than a little prejudice. Yet again you seem to fall for characterizing some group based solely on the most visible, extreme minority. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1145.html#crime I assume you think most blacks are criminals as well? And policing doesn't promote morality. You can never imbue people will positive, personal character traits with the threat of force and penalty. That is all police can provide. Yet another indication that your "vision" is completely dystopian.

My bad. But policing is not the only thing I suggested - I suggested education to be used to change the vision of the masses - to make them better and more expertly in their lives - thus actually reducing the need for poice.

Moderation is not equivalent nor necessitated by secularization, nor vice versa. It is clear that your idea of secularization includes not only a moderation of religion but a marginalization toward the ends of "freedom from religion". So your secularization IS contrary to moderate religion.

But if a person becomes a moderate, secular values is exactly what replaces his dogmas.

 

[lightgigantic]

Those are not freedoms.

The irony is that those are the tools you would need to tackle the problem that you similarly define.

FYI there's a tendency for diametric opposites to practically the same on the ground - for instance communism and fascism, or in this case, radical theism and fanatical atheism

 

[Big Chiller]

^Communism in it's original form as invented by Karl Marx is fundamentally flawed whereas nationalism isn't.

 

[Syne]

But those minorities are real, and they are a cost to religion. They are much more influential, costly and powerful than what moderates can pay for - because they are radicals.

But still only minorities. Do you condemn the police because a minority of crime still occurs, or do you laud them for the majority of crimes they deter? Should we abolish police forces because the existing crime is so much more visible than the law abiding citizen, just as you suggest of religion? Where society definitely doesn't tolerate a behavior it becomes a crime, so the behavior you hold religions responsible for are actually the crimes you should be equally criticizing the police for. Why do you think the intelligence community is criticized for not anticipating terrorist attacks? It's because such actions are a security matter, not a religious matter.

If you got that impression, sorry, That is not what I meant. And freedom of religion must be coupled with be freedom from religion.

Dystopian idealism. Those are incompatible. You must show how the latter is compatible with the first amendment, at the very least.

But I only said that religion does a poorer job of it than the police.

And as I said above, security is the primary job of the police, not religions, so any failure of security is a failure of police, not religions. Do you expect religions to wield the same authority, or better yet, would you grant it to them to justify what you hold them accountable for?

NO - it can be accomplised as I said -
"There are three other ways I can think of. First is powerful and well-informed attack with things we know to be true - like evolution. Second is working towards removal of taboos, social acceptance of non-belief among the masses and open discussion and debate on issues of God and religion. The third is the secularisation of the Government and the economy - removing "God" from public addresses and campaigns and withdrawl of special economic previledges to religious institutions. The education is something to be worked on now, ASAP. First and second are already being done and must increase their outreach. When they reach a crtitical mass, the third step would become possible. The issue would then we essentially resolved - with absolute belief in god or religious dogmatism debased to the level of ufology."

First, an attack will only be met with the exact same sort of resistance it has already shown to be met with. A more aggressive attack will be met with more aggressive resistance, and considering the overwhelming number of believers, is foolhardy. Second, you will only accomplish an acceptance of non-belief by NOT threatening rights such as the freedom of speech. No one accepts that which they see as directly opposed to their own interests. Third, there is too much money in courting the majority opinion, so you would have to start by reforming government itself, but even without the money, majority opinion holds sway in a democracy. So all three can be seen to be dystopian ideals that cannot feasibly be implemented short of a totalitarian regime.

So what's you opinion of democracy?

My bad. But policing is not the only thing I suggested - I suggested education to be used to change the vision of the masses - to make them better and more expertly in their lives - thus actually reducing the need for poice.

So you advocate some sort of state sponsored moral education? What would that look like? What would you tell children was the consequence of, say, lying? How long do you think it would take them to figure out that "wrong" is only what you cannot get away with?

Of course, that's only assuming that you have somehow managed to usurp moral/religious teaching in the home.

But if a person becomes a moderate, secular values is exactly what replaces his dogmas.

Not true. A religious moderate only takes a moderate approach in their interpretation of dogma. They do not replace it with secularism. Only those who have rejected religion entirely do that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

On the other hand, the down grading of religion in America, due to liberalism, has resulted in a drastic increase in social costs such as welfare.

You mean welfare is not a religiously-motivated policy: "...Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless", etc.? And what is the social cost of leaving people in the street to starve?

It has led to an increased cost due to preventable disease.

You mean religious indoctrination is a medical treatment?

It has also lowered the educational standards.

You mean by removing the morning prayer, the curriculum was impacted?

The "mind control" of religion works both ways; for good and bad. If you can control one to be a rebel you can also control them to be good.

Rebels are bad? Or are they sometimes good people just getting rid of mind control?

If we cut the social funding that artifically props up the negative results of the liberal way, the human tragedy would be more obvious.

Because people would be dying in the streets? What negative results do you refer to? Dying in the streets? This doesn't make sense.

If we went back to educational funding available when religion was stronger in America, the decline in education would be far worse.

When was religion stronger than now? Other than the economic crisis, what has affected educational funding? Liberals want to fund the hell out of schools and increase college loans and grants. What the heck are you talking about?

We are able to create an illusion, if we don't normalize social cost but can force tax payers to foot the bill for the magic trick.

Have your taxes gone up (for any reason other than making more money)? They are going to spend tax revenue one way or another, in every case you are being forced. What difference does it make to you if some of that money also feeds the starving and shelters the homeless, as required by Jesus?

I am for an experiment that normalizes resources then and now and then compares to see which is the problem.This will get us past subjectivity and PC word games to create illusions. The liberals are just as manipulated as they project but without much in the way of a good side that does not cost the tax payer.

This statement is utterly vague. I can't make sense of it whatsoever.

With religion you get charity work which does good but does not cost me anything unlessI choose to particulate.

You mean participate. Fine. So participate, and help relieve the tax burden for others.

With liberalism we need a tax increase to force a bad program.

Have you checked your tax payments lately? If they have gone up, you must be wealthy. Congratulations! Now go give the starving a few crumbs off your plate like the Good Book says! Oh, never mind, the Government has taken care of that, just in case you were too busy at the marina installing the gold toilet handle on your yacht!

This is worse to me since it takes way my liberty. I don't have that problem with religion since I have choice.

Putting the homeless in shelters reduces your liberty? How so?

So you define religion strictly in terms of mind control and charity, and you like religion because it gives you a choice to help the needy or to leave them to suffer? :bugeye:

Ludicrous to the max!

 

[aaqucnaona]

But still only minorities. Do you condemn the police because a minority of crime still occurs, or do you laud them for the majority of crimes they deter? Should we abolish police forces because the existing crime is so much more visible than the law abiding citizen, just as you suggest of religion? Where society definitely doesn't tolerate a behavior it becomes a crime, so the behavior you hold religions responsible for are actually the crimes you should be equally criticizing the police for. Why do you think the intelligence community is criticized for not anticipating terrorist attacks?

But the police dont have costs like religions do - a subversion of the will to knowledge, an anthropocentric worldview and creation of touchy spots that can push the buttons of people. In this sense, even if police and religions were to fail equally [police do much better actually], the police would still have a much greater net payment to human civilisation than religion.

It's because such actions are a security matter, not a religious matter.

Which has a religious motivation, nevertheless.

Dystopian idealism. Those are incompatible. You must show how the latter is compatible with the first amendment, at the very least.

How is the freedom from religion, which involves people not intruding upon the privacy of other and assert their belief on them, violate the first amendment? They can say 'this is what I believe' evagelical churchs are protected in this sense, but they cannot say 'this is what it is' without facing opposition, and if the opposition makes the better case, then they can no longer say this is what it it, but still say that is what they belief. Eg, creationism.

And as I said above, security is the primary job of the police, not religions, so any failure of security is a failure of police, not religions. Do you expect religions to wield the same authority, or better yet, would you grant it to them to justify what you hold them accountable for?

Security is the job of police. Ensuring that harm does not result due to religion is, however, the job of religion - precisely because it is assertive. Science, being tentative, need not do this. Neither do harmless religions, like the peaceful or tolerant ones.

First, an attack will only be met with the exact same sort of resistance it has already shown to be met with. A more aggressive attack will be met with more aggressive resistance, and considering the overwhelming number of believers, is foolhardy.

No if the attacker make a better case on a larger scale than before. Rationalism and science changes and becomes better - religions dont. And that is the edge that will be decisive - just as it has been so far.

Second, you will only accomplish an acceptance of non-belief by NOT threatening rights such as the freedom of speech. No one accepts that which they see as directly opposed to their own interests.

But if those interests are shown to not be the best ones, many will change.

Third, there is too much money in courting the majority opinion, so you would have to start by reforming government itself, but even without the money, majority opinion holds sway in a democracy. So all three can be seen to be dystopian ideals that cannot feasibly be implemented short of a totalitarian regime.

Do not underestimate the social architect - changing the vision of the masses is a much more powerful and better way, which keeps their freedoms intact, than any reformation of the government. The religions are using their freedoms to sway the masses, we must asset our rights and fight back. The people caught in the crossfire get the opportunity to see both sides and decide for themselves.

So what's you opinion of democracy?

Its the best system of governance we have, though its not perfect. I had made a thread on a democratic one world government, where nations are like states, and the central body [like UN] is the highest power. The nations are still soverign and democratic, just like states are, but we have one civlization, one community and one government-

So you advocate some sort of state sponsored moral education? What would that look like? What would you tell children was the consequence of, say, lying? How long do you think it would take them to figure out that "wrong" is only what you cannot get away with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=relmfu

Of course, that's only assuming that you have somehow managed to usurp moral/religious teaching in the home.

Again, the changing vision of the masses does that - compare the home teachings of people in texas and sweden.

Not true. A religious moderate only takes a moderate approach in their interpretation of dogma. They do not replace it with secularism. Only those who have rejected religion entirely do that.

Maybe. The values of a moderate reflect secular ones, even if he may not hold them. So it is practically similiar, though ideologically different. Besides, moderation does indeed pave the way for secularisation.

 

[Syne]

But the police dont have costs like religions do - a subversion of the will to knowledge, an anthropocentric worldview and creation of touchy spots that can push the buttons of people. In this sense, even if police and religions were to fail equally [police do much better actually], the police would still have a much greater net payment to human civilisation than religion.

And I suppose you think that the removal of religion will somehow magically remove these as well? It couldn't be possible that these exist in religion because they generally exist in man, huh? So I suppose some god bestowed them or something? That's the only way you can expect to do away with them through religion alone.

Cranks are busy all the time subverting knowledge, the anthropic principle has been used in philosophy and science, and people generally have a wide variety of emotional "buttons", all without any help from religion. So where are these supposed "costs" which you seem to think specifically attach solely to religion?

And you haven't provided any argument for police doing better, other than your say-so. With the disparate power of authority between the two, you'd be hard pressed to compare these directly.

Which has a religious motivation, nevertheless.

Such unstable individuals are likely to find another outlet for exercising their personal "demons". It's optimistically foolhardy to think otherwise. But you seem to have bought into the propaganda that religion breeds evil. Just like money and power, religion is not the root of any evil, it merely attracts evil.

How is the freedom from religion, which involves people not intruding upon the privacy of other and assert their belief on them, violate the first amendment? They can say 'this is what I believe' evagelical churchs are protected in this sense, but they cannot say 'this is what it is' without facing opposition, and if the opposition makes the better case, then they can no longer say this is what it it, but still say that is what they belief. Eg, creationism.

There is such a thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy) which you don't have in any public space, nor can expect to have usurp the first amendment. Besides, the freedom of speech is protected whether publicly or not, so restricting it definitely violates the first amendment.

Ideologies and facts are not subject to defamation laws. Forcing people to agree with anything is exactly the sort of dystopian notions I've been saying you are advocating.

Security is the job of police. Ensuring that harm does not result due to religion is, however, the job of religion - precisely because it is assertive. Science, being tentative, need not do this. Neither do harmless religions, like the peaceful or tolerant ones.

No, it is not, as we know those who would cause harm to have psychological issues and only use religion, politics, nationalism, ethnicity, socioeconomics etc. as justifying excuses for their behavior. Religion is not responsible for security, nor for mental illness. So where is your outrage against police and psychiatry? Religion doesn't even assert as much authority as your average high school guidance counselor.

No if the attacker make a better case on a larger scale than before. Rationalism and science changes and becomes better - religions dont. And that is the edge that will be decisive - just as it has been so far.

But if those interests are shown to not be the best ones, many will change.

Do not underestimate the social architect - changing the vision of the masses is a much more powerful and better way, which keeps their freedoms intact, than any reformation of the government. The religions are using their freedoms to sway the masses, we must asset our rights and fight back. The people caught in the crossfire get the opportunity to see both sides and decide for themselves.

Assert what rights? You have no right to freedom from religion where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and the freedom of speech is protected.

And where is this "decisive" you claim?

Its the best system of governance we have, though its not perfect. I had made a thread on a democratic one world government, where nations are like states, and the central body [like UN] is the highest power. The nations are still soverign and democratic, just like states are, but we have one civlization, one community and one government-

Well all of these dystopian ideas of yours are not compatible with a democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=relmfu

So no comment on the possible content of a state sponsored morality, huh? No opinions of your own, or even a summary that would save me watching a propaganda piece. From what little a skimmed, I would say that normative morality (a standard), such as law, is not merely a luxury of the wealthy. That is all an absolute morality is. It's a normative standard of behavior that can be applied generally.

Again, the changing vision of the masses does that - compare the home teachings of people in texas and sweden.

You should also note that Sweden was converted from paganism and has a state church that was only separated from its government in 2000. That probably has a not insignificant impact on the development of attitudes toward religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eurobarometer_poll.png Swedes are the second highest European country to believe in "some sort of spirit of life force", which probably has something to do with its pagan origins.

Don't underestimate traditional nationalism.

Maybe. The values of a moderate reflect secular ones, even if he may not hold them. So it is practically similiar, though ideologically different. Besides, moderation does indeed pave the way for secularisation.

Only insofar as secular values are generally reflections on things like the "golden rule".

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

I don't see any evidence of that.

Only because you're not looking. Do you know roughly what percentage of Americans are christian? That's right, it's roughly seventy five percent, with roughly ten percent of the US population being atheist/agnostic/non-religious. Now, can you tell me what percentage of the US prison population are christian? That's right, it's about eighty five percent, with less than one percent of the same population being atheist/agnostic/non-religious. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that religion really doesn't make people "better".

Of course, there's more evidence than just that. Let's start with what morals religion(christianity in this case) preaches. We'll start with a ringing endorsement of slavery, killing non-believers and other "troublemakers"(such as disobedient children), and the "moral" that four out of every five people(currently) are going to be punished eternally for a finite crime(the epitome of evil).

Again, I could go all day and night with this. I won't because I've already demonstrated that the reason you've not seen any evidence of this is because you've not been looking.

How many times have we heard someone say, "if I weren't a Christian"?

"There, but for the grace of god, go I."

Which really means:

"There, by the grace of god, goes someone else."

People may think that their morality comes from their christianity, but the evidence indicates otherwise. In fact I defy you to demonstrate a positive link between religiosity(the degree to which one is religious) and ethical behavior. You won't be able to because one doesn't exist.

There is plenty of evidence that religion does help restrain the tendencies of people, as that is the whole point to their dogmas.

No there isn't. If there is then you need to put your money where your mouth is and cough it up because in over seven years of searching for such evidence I haven't found any.

Just because the extreme behavior of a minority of religious people is more visible and cannot be so restrained tells us nothing, as this behavior would be no better restrained under any other strictures, including secular.

Are you bullshitting me with this? Do you seriously believe this crap? If you do then you need to take a long, hard look at the various religious countries that are extant around us? Tell us what you find and then compare that to what goes down in secular countries.

But that's how propaganda works.

Oh please, now we're on to conspiracy theories? How gullible do you think I am. This isn't propaganda, it's cold, hard facts. The fact of the matter is that there is no positive correlation between religion(any religion) and ethical behavior. This will hold true no matter how long you stuff your fingers in your ears.

Just take the most visible and undesirable actions of an extreme minority of any group and use it to characterize the whole group.

Who characterized any group? We were speaking about generalities and thus I was speaking in generalities. Never did I say that all of any one group was one way, that would be silly of me.

Even if the undesirable behavior is known to have unrelated causes.

Oh, what unrelated causes would those be? And are they capable of explaining the majority of the cases we were talking about?

 

[Syne]

Only because you're not looking. Do you know roughly what percentage of Americans are christian? That's right, it's roughly seventy five percent, with roughly ten percent of the US population being atheist/agnostic/non-religious. Now, can you tell me what percentage of the US prison population are christian? That's right, it's about eighty five percent, with less than one percent of the same population being atheist/agnostic/non-religious. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that religion really doesn't make people "better".

Of course, there's more evidence than just that. Let's start with what morals religion(christianity in this case) preaches. We'll start with a ringing endorsement of slavery, killing non-believers and other "troublemakers"(such as disobedient children), and the "moral" that four out of every five people(currently) are going to be punished eternally for a finite crime(the epitome of evil).

Again, I could go all day and night with this. I won't because I've already demonstrated that the reason you've not seen any evidence of this is because you've not been looking.

Really? I think any intelligent person should be able to reconcile those numbers without resorting to an indictment of religion in general. First, prisons are an extremely isolated and compact "society" where pressure to conform to the majority is likely much higher. Second, religious conversion is generally thought to aid things like parole.

You simply cannot extrapolate such a "society" to free society in general, as there are some vast differences in social dynamics.

You make the mistake of assuming some absolute truth to scripture in order to claim such evidence as slavery, killing, etc.. You should be aware that such things are not actually "preached" and that scripture reflects the age in which it was written. And where did this "four out of five" figure come from? Many believe in "grace" which would admit the entire 75% to "heaven".

If you refrain from assuming some absolute truth to scripture, you should be able to see how the consequences of many free will choices are easily likened to a hell on Earth.

Seriously, if you are a non-believer then you shouldn't argue as if scripture held any absolute truth. You should view it as any other literature of its age. So where is the actual evidence that religions foster more immoral activity than it promotes morality? Even just on the face of that statement it is a bit ridiculous, as the whole point of religious dogma is entirely centered around promoting some normative morality.

No there isn't. If there is then you need to put your money where your mouth is and cough it up because in over seven years of searching for such evidence I haven't found any.

In a country with a majority religious it would necessarily be difficult to differentiate the influence of religion from the influence of society in general. This is also necessarily blurred by the fact that both religious moderation and secularization have the same impact on things such as crime. But is seems that religiosity does have an impact on the acceptance of authority. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914131933.htm

Are you bullshitting me with this? Do you seriously believe this crap? If you do then you need to take a long, hard look at the various religious countries that are extant around us? Tell us what you find and then compare that to what goes down in secular countries.

I'll just take Sweden as a good example of a fairly ideal secular society.
A rise in violent crime until leveling off in the 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden
1990s economic crisis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s
Welfare largely subsidized in the 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_Sweden
Costing ~50% of the GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden

So there is pretty clear evidence that in secular countries large welfare systems may mediate the rise in crime, but not a decline. This is while crime rates in the US have actually been declining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States This while only having a median taxation and welfare.

Oh please, now we're on to conspiracy theories? How gullible do you think I am. This isn't propaganda, it's cold, hard facts. The fact of the matter is that there is no positive correlation between religion(any religion) and ethical behavior. This will hold true no matter how long you stuff your fingers in your ears.

No conspiracy at all. Just the obvious fact of characterizing any group based solely on the activities of an extreme minority of that group. Positive correlations do not matter when you use the worst of any group to paint the entire group. Do you also consider most blacks to be criminals? Same thing.

Who characterized any group? We were speaking about generalities and thus I was speaking in generalities. Never did I say that all of any one group was one way, that would be silly of me.

No, you said that morality vs immorality promoted by religion was "a wash". This means you are characterizing the overall impact of religion based on a demonstrable disparity to its extreme minority.

Oh, what unrelated causes would those be? And are they capable of explaining the majority of the cases we were talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_and_correlates_of_crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_and_correlates_of_crime#Religion

Generally, violent behavior is a primarily psychological issue.

 

[Balerion]

It was the only explaination/had no alternative for things like psychology, medicine, culture, thought, facts etc - at least for the masses it was true. Unless you were born in the house of scientists or philosophers or rulers, you were likely to have nothing but religion in your life. Today, with the age of information has come the ability to procure massive amount knowledge and ideas, and religion cannot stand up to this challenge, thereby losing that which paid for its costs.

But it wasn't an explanation at all. It was our first attempt at an explanation, but as such it wasn't a very good one. So where dose this "payment" come from? In order to be worth the trouble (which is what I can only assume you mean by the phrase "paid for its cost") it has to provide something worthwhile. Religion has never done that as an all-encompassing philosophy.

 

[aaqucnaona]

But it wasn't an explanation at all. It was our first attempt at an explanation, but as such it wasn't a very good one. So where dose this "payment" come from?

In my analogy, the payment for any social phenomenon is that which makes it possible for the phenomenon to continue, that which makes it acceptable, even necessary in any sense.

In order to be worth the trouble (which is what I can only assume you mean by the phrase "paid for its cost") it has to provide something worthwhile. Religion has never done that as an all-encompassing philosophy.

No it hasn't. But it has been the only thing for a long time. Religion could pay because it had no competitors - any memeplex that becomes a free market of ideas means quick death of religious influence in that field - biological diversity, human morality, social order, politics, etc. That is precisely why it cannot pay for it costs any more. Too much of that which payed for it is now dominated by secular and non-religious perspectives.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

Really? I think any intelligent person should be able to reconcile those numbers without resorting to an indictment of religion in general.

I wasn't making any indictments about religion, merely countering your baseless claim that religion "makes people better". Never did I say that religion makes people act poorly, though it certainly can just as any belief impacts the actions we take, it's just that there's no positive correlation between religiosity and ethical behavior, none at all.

First, prisons are an extremely isolated and compact "society" where pressure to conform to the majority is likely much higher.

And this has what to do with intake statistics about the various religious groups represented in prison? Oh that's right, nothing.

Second, religious conversion is generally thought to aid things like parole.

This argument would be valid if I weren't specifically talking about intake rates as opposed to conversion rates. All US prisons are required to ascertain the religion of new inmates so that their freedom of religion can be respected(wouldn't want to serve bacon to a jew or a muslim). These are the rates I gave you and are completely independent to the conversion rate in prison. As it stands this is nothing more than a red herring, a logical fallacy.

You simply cannot extrapolate such a "society" to free society in general, as there are some vast differences in social dynamics.

Did I do that? No, I don't think I did. You said that you've not seen any evidence that religion doesn't "make people better". I gave you that as merely one example of such evidence. All of the evidence points to religion doing jack shit to "make people better". Like I said, this is merely one example.

You make the mistake of assuming some absolute truth to scripture in order to claim such evidence as slavery, killing, etc.

Way to grab the wrong end of entirely the wrong stick there. I never said that the only correct interpretations of the bible consist of it supporting slavery and whatnot, though it certainly does(all one has to do is read the words and look at the so-called moral laws that your god established and then never revoked). The scriptures are quite clear that apostasy, adultery, and many other activities which can't even be considered harmful should be punished with death. The scriptures are also quite clear that slavery is fine(not only is it resoundingly endorsed in the OT but Jesus speaks favorably). Meanwhile the scripture is also quite clear that we are to love our neighbors and turn the other cheek.

If you couldn't grasp my point then here it is in plain english for you. Religion in general, and christianity specifically in this instance, can be(and frequently have been) used to justify virtually any behavior imaginable, from FGM to helping the needy. Given this grabbag approach to ethics is it any wonder why there's no evidence showing a positive correlation between religiosity and ethical behavior? No, not really.

You should be aware that such things are not actually "preached"...

You quite obviously haven't been to as many churches as I have(not surprising really) because I can assure you that there are places where such things are actually preached(if not practiced). This is one of those blanket statements you accuse me of using(though I've never used one on this site), hypocritical much? I must say though, it is very christian of you.

and that scripture reflects the age in which it was written.

OF COURSE IT DOES!!! This is what I've been telling you the entire fucking time! And it's why the bible(or take your pick of holy texts, though some are better than others) is a joke as a guide to ethical behavior. It can almost literally be used to support any behavior you can think of. Human sacrifice? You betcha(in more than one place). The killing of homosexuals? Of course. The debasement of women? In spades.

Like I said before, either put your money where your mouth is and show me the "evidence" you have that religiosity is causally connected to ethical behavior or withdraw your claim.

And where did this "four out of five" figure come from?

Well only one in five(roughly) people on this planet are christian. So assuming that christianity is the true path to heaven it logically follows that four out of five people are going to burn for all eternity(unless you don't buy that lake of fire bullshit). Besides, this is the view that is supported by scripture.

Many believe in "grace" which would admit the entire 75% to "heaven".

And they're going to have a tough time finding that in the bible without some truly awe inspiring mental acrobatics.

If you refrain from assuming some absolute truth to scripture, you should be able to see how the consequences of many free will choices are easily likened to a hell on Earth.

I haven't, actually, I've completely rejected the scripture because it's nonsensical and internally inconsistent and thus if it does have truth value it's most likely by accident rather than design.

Oh, and for this to be true you'd first have to demonstrate that free will exists, and in the entirety of human history this has never been accomplished(and there really should be evidence of free will by now). If I don't grant that premise(and I don't) then it invalidates this argument here.

Seriously, if you are a non-believer then you shouldn't argue as if scripture held any absolute truth.

I doubt if anything resembling "absolute truth" even exists, and if it does then it's certainly not in the bible or any other man-made text.

However you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I actually think that the bible is anything other than an ancient example of epic fiction, I don't. The wars, the miracles, the various tales in the old and new testament(from the resurrection of Jesus to the Exodus of the Hebrews) certainly didn't happen as the bible describes them and many never happened at all.

In reality I must grant concessions if I'm to engage with theists on any meaningful degree(because we all know that the sun is more likely to spontaneously explode than for your average theist to grant me any concessions). For example, in this debate I've granted for the sake of the argument that the bible isn't merely a bunch of disjointed stories which later generations turned into a control system, just like I've granted for the sake of the argument that there is a god and that that god is the christian god. None of these things are in evidence, I've merely granted them so that the conversation can continue, and that doesn't even come close to implying that I actually believe that tripe.

You should view it as any other literature of its age.

I do, you don't.

So where is the actual evidence that religions foster more immoral activity than it promotes morality?

Why would I be presenting such evidence? Who made that claim? I know I certainly didn't. Would you quit the straw man fallacies, they were old before any of us were born.

I would, however, like you to support your claim that religiosity is positively correlated(and a positive correlation is the best you can hope for) with ethical behavior with actual evidence. So far you've not done so.

Even just on the face of that statement it is a bit ridiculous, as the whole point of religious dogma is entirely centered around promoting some normative morality.

I don't give a shit what the point is, I give a shit whether or not it works. The point of cold fusion was to provide a limitless(functionally) source of energy for the planet, the problem was that it doesn't work. I'm not going to ask you again in this post to put up or shut up, I think I've gotten the point across now that you need to support the claim that you made. No, I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you think it's common sense, I don't really care about common sense, I care about the data. Show me the data and I'll concede the point, until then I'll keep pestering you to support your currently unsupported claim.

In a country with a majority religious it would necessarily be difficult to differentiate the influence of religion from the influence of society in general.

So work hard to support your claim. If religiosity is indeed causally correlated with ethical behavior the way you claim then there is evidence of it, so go look for it. That's all I really want, is for you to support your claim.

This is while crime rates in the US have actually been declining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States This while only having a median taxation and welfare.

So where's the evidence that this is due to our rather overt religiosity? Don't have any? Aw, that's a shame.

No, you said that morality vs immorality promoted by religion was "a wash".

Well that's what the currently available evidence shows. Even if religion has an effect on morality it's small enough to be overshadowed even by biology. Actually, why don't I give you the Hitchens Challenge. I defy you to find one ethical behavior or statement that a theist can engage in that an atheist can't, I dare you.

This means you are characterizing the overall impact of religion based on a demonstrable disparity to its extreme minority.

Care to demonstrate that disparity then, because you haven't so far.

Do you also consider most blacks to be criminals? Same thing.

Wait, is this a red herring and an attempt at character assassination? Wow, I must say that I've very rarely seen those two coincide without actually being an ad hominem, good job. However your tactics are lacking, given that none of the accusations you've made against me have been even remotely accurate to date. Still waiting on that evidence by the way.

And it is interesting that you should bring up the topic of racism, albeit as an implicit insult to myself. Did you know that the KKK's views on racial superiority are a direct result of their religious views? It's true, in fact they used the bible(with stunning scriptural accuracy I must admit) to fight against all forms of racial equality. I guess you could count that as an example of religion leading to immoral behavior. Oh, and let's not forget the Holocaust.

Positive correlations do not matter when you use the worst of any group to paint the entire group.

Ah, something I haven't done, gotcha. So, when you're done fighting the scarecrows would you care to take a shot at supporting your argument? It would be rather nice to see some evidence instead of larger and larger piles of assertions.

Generally, violent behavior is a primarily psychological issue.

I agree, but I wasn't talking solely about violent behavior now was I. The question was whether or not religion statistically increases ethical behavior. You claim that it does and you need to back that up. No dodging the burden of proof on this one.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And it is interesting that you should bring up the topic of racism, albeit as an implicit insult to myself. Did you know that the KKK's views on racial superiority are a direct result of their religious views? It's true, in fact they used the bible(with stunning scriptural accuracy I must admit) to fight against all forms of racial equality. I guess you could count that as an example of religion leading to immoral behavior. Oh, and let's not forget the Holocaust.

It was remarkable that you made this connection which would flown over the thread otherwise. Yes, let us not forget. They were keying off of the original Old World notion of slavery not only endorsed in the Bible, but in the other principal theme, that God plays favorites: since I'm holding the Good Book, I must be chosen, and since you can't read, slave, sorry, your stuck out, now here's a cotton sack, go pick the back 40 before dark or I'll tan your hide. The whipping was justified in the Bible, too.

And then to justify the age old anti-Semitism as it evolved in the Holocaust, they only needed to generalize that any Jew is as good as the Jews who murdered Jesus, so let's exterminate them all, it's within the realm of atonement for the sins of his murderers.

And then the KKK of course is emblematic of these three components: religiosity, hatred of blacks, and hatred of Jews. I say "is" because they continue to have a resurgence now and again, the idea is still alive and kicking among many a Bible thumper. In fact it's hard to imagine anyone else other than a fundamentalist ever even wanting to join. Now there's a statistic we'd like to see.

I thought maybe you'd gone off somewhere - I hadn't seen you posting much lately until recently. You commentary is always interesting, sharp and clear.

 

[Syne]

@Arioch

I never said religion "makes people better", I said it tempers behavior. But there is evidence that people who believe in a more punitive god, the more likely fundamentalist belief, are least likely to cheat. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/30/local/la-me-beliefs-morals-20110430 As I have said elsewhere in this thread, in a society that is predominantly religious, you are not likely to see many significant differences between the religious and the society in general. You did imply that religion makes people act more poorly than not by bringing up the prison statistics.

"Intake statistics"? Site your source, as I've never seen any explicitly noted as "intake". But you should also keep in mind the percentage of recidivism, up to as much as 67% within three years of a release, which would necessarily skew any intake numbers.

Again, site your sources and account for recidivism rates. If 75% of the populace is Christian, 85% in prison, and 67% recidivism there is a high likelihood that the discrepancy is more than accounted for by recidivism alone.

By siting prison statistics you have tried to present a direct correlate between both societies. Yet again, I've never claimed that religion "makes people better". This is only a straw man you've erected. So a demonstrably piss-poor example in an attempt to refute an argument I haven't even made.

look at the so-called moral laws that your god established

Not my god.

Adultery "can't even be considered harmful"? Infidelity is the top reason for divorce. http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-reasons-for-divorce-and-marriage-breakdowns-stats-from-the-us
And divorce has these consequences. http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

But that's completely beside the point that you seem to take scripture as authoritative on a god and morality even though you should, considering your apparent views, completely discount it as merely literature and focus solely on the actions of the religious. So whether you realize it or not, a non-believer arguing scripture is either contradictory or a complete red herring. To make such arguments you must implicitly agree that they are the possible authority on morality. Whether they are to any given person is only motivation, not the actions whereby to judge morality.

I've already said that religion, politics, ethnicity, socioeconomics, etc. are all frequently used as justification for unacceptable behavior. And this is why we would be unlikely to find many significant differences between the religious and a predominately religious society.

I must say though, it is very christian of you.

Not a Christian.

OF COURSE IT DOES!!! This is what I've been telling you the entire fucking time!And it's why the bible(or take your pick of holy texts, though some are better than others) is a joke as a guide to ethical behavior.

No, you haven't, as this has been my stance for decades. So if it's a joke, why do you use it to make your points? Why do you lend it any credence at all? Why not just address the actual behavior rather than something you claim to be farcical? Talk about tilting at windmills. Not only am I not a Christian and don't believe in their god, I don't take scripture literally. So you are just spinning your wheels.

And please give up this straw man of what you've imagined I've claimed. Seems you've imagined me to be diametrically opposed to all of your views, erected a straw man to that effect, and are busy attacking it rather than looking at evidence, as you've accused me of, apparently as projection.

You sure argue from scripture a lot, especially considering I don't hold it as authoritative. Who exactly are you trying to convince here? It ain't me.

The doctrine of "grace" is as well-supported in the Bible as the doctrine of "works", depending of course upon interpretation. No "mental acrobatics" required. For arguing from scripture, you sure don't seem to know much about it. Well...aside from whatever propaganda "memes" you've picked up.

Oh, and for this to be true you'd first have to demonstrate that free will exists, and in the entirety of human history this has never been accomplished(and there really should be evidence of free will by now). If I don't grant that premise(and I don't) then it invalidates this argument here.

Then you have no basis for any moral judgment at all (including judging the morality of others), as only meaningful choices would allows us to assign any accountability to anyone, whether murders, rapists, etc.. If man has no choice then causation requires all blame and responsibility to regress all the way to the big bang.

For example, in this debate I've granted for the sake of the argument that the bible isn't merely a bunch of disjointed stories which later generations turned into a control system, just like I've granted for the sake of the argument that there is a god and that that god is the christian god. None of these things are in evidence, I've merely granted them so that the conversation can continue, and that doesn't even come close to implying that I actually believe that tripe.

Like I said, you've been tilting at the windmills of your own straw men, as I don't take scripture literally, am not a Christian, and don't believe in the Christian god.

You should view it as any other literature of its age.

I do, you don't.

That's just your own imagination. Get a grip.

But you're right, you did only claim the moral impact of religion was a wash. Although it is then confusing as to what point you were making by introducing the prison statistic. And I've already fully addressed that claim and the statistics. If you need me to reiterate I will.

If you really believe that you aren't erecting a straw man, then by all means show me a specific quote of mine which you want me to support, not your polarized interpretations.

So where's the evidence that this is due to our rather overt religiosity? Don't have any? Aw, that's a shame.

Other than the major difference of a predominately religious country to a predominately secular one, what would you recognize as causal? You are the one who made the argument about religion not being positively correlative to crime rates. Now you don't want to accept a rather large discrepancy you haven't accounted for.

Religious behavior is not likely to be differentiated from that of the general populace in a predominately religious society. So positive statistics are likely to reflect on religion unless you can provide a supportable alternative.

Actually, why don't I give you the Hitchens Challenge. I defy you to find one ethical behavior or statement that a theist can engage in that an atheist can't, I dare you.

Funny, I just answered that in another thread.

A non-believer could not honestly affirm the moral basis of anyone who believes morality to be revealed by a god [or scripture, as you've clearly demonstrated]. All an unbeliever can do is to assert that the believer has no "real" basis for such morality, whereas the believer can affirm the morality of a non-believer, based as it is on reasoning they could honestly agree with.

It is immoral to undermine the basis of someone's existing morality, thus encouraging immorality.

It should be obvious that a majority of religious people are not committing immoral offenses, otherwise with the vast number of religious people in the world there would be complete chaos. If you can't see this, I can't help you. You're just too obtuse.

This means you are characterizing the overall impact of religion based on a demonstrable disparity to its extreme minority.

Care to demonstrate that disparity then, because you haven't so far.

Do you also consider most blacks to be criminals? Same thing.

Wait, is this a red herring and an attempt at character assassination? Wow, I must say that I've very rarely seen those two coincide without actually being an ad hominem, good job.

No fallacy at all, as you've clearly taken a minority of bad as a wash of a majority of good based only on the higher visibility of the minority. No character assassination intended, just a very direct example of the exact same sort of characterization based on a minority of a given group. I can't help it if you don't see your own bias.

And I didn't bring up racism, but you do so seem to love polarizing anything I say. A stereotype or prejudice is not necessarily racist, even when applying to a give race. Perhaps you should look up those words so you don't put your foot in you mouth like that again. Any insult of you being racist is completely inferred by you, not implied by me. No need to be so defensive.

As I've already said, many times now, people such as the KKK will justify their behavior with whatever they deem plausible. Things used to excuse behavior do not necessarily reflect on those things. Of course, I guess if you don't believe free will exists then you might lend some amount of credence to any such excuse. Just as well considering the lack of actual accountability that could be assigned without any freedom of meaningful choice.

Positive correlations do not matter when you use the worst of any group to paint the entire group.

Ah, something I haven't done, gotcha.

By saying that religion is a moral wash and justifying it with prison statistics you have done just that. You have used the worst to weigh disproportionally against the effects of the entirety.

All criminality and unethical behavior is a psychological issue, don't equivocate.

Seriously, quote me on these supposed claims of mine, otherwise pack up all these straw men.

 

[lightgigantic]

stage 1 of fulfilling this need