Hi! And thank you!

 

I'm in the United States, Michigan specifically, and yeah- hah, I guess my introduction kind of sucked. :D 

 

I used the same handle for almost everything, so it wasn't quite so difficult to make it here.  

 

I'm an Atheist. I'm not a very hard line Atheist because I don't really like to debate so much. But I do tend to think of my atheism as activism to get rid of religion. (So, I guess maybe I am a bit hardline ) 

 

It's three in the morning here and I'm probably going to get to bed soon, because yeah, super late! But I wanted to say hi to everyone. :D 

 

 

 Differing views on whether or not religion should be eradicated or not is not entirely a basis for you to say we have nothing in common. Though perhaps in this realm we do not. But I feel like religion has done more harm than good, and I feel it is stopping us from reaching our potential. But to each their own.

 

Athans, by all means. But the hate and division should be purged from it. The elevation of the acceptance of arbitrary religious doctrine to the pinnacle of human ethical achievement is what I dislike most from morally inconsistent god people.

Something else I'd like to hear from the godly is the admission that a lack of knowledge is a good reason not to accept dogma for which threats and not testable explanation form the underpinnings.

Oh - and how's it going Dinah. Pleased to meet you, hope you have fun here. We have gamers...

 

 

We still have the ancient Greek works because of Islam. The Islamic Empire valued knowledge greatly and encouraged it. Because of this they made in advances in astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and more. Need some examples? They were the first ones to correctly measure the motion of the Apogee, they knew the effects of win on tall structures, inclination of the Ecliptic, new rate of precession, new solar eccentricity, linear motion as a result of circular motion, study of germs, vaccines, law of refraction, calculated the hight of the atmosphere, they further developed the astrolabe, and more. The Muslims were hundreds of years ahead of the West in almost every aspect and it was not until the renaissance that Westerners aquired these Islamic works through the Muslims in Spain. Ibn al-Shatir did Copernicus' work before he did because Copernicus took his ideas from Islamic texts. Islam made these advances because they encourged knowledge. If they were so far ahead why are they still riding camels around in the sand? Well that is because fundamentalist leaders took charge and held them back. On a more minor note at the Islamic school we visited ALL of their students spent their last 2 years of high school attending universities so by the time of graduation they have 60 college credits.

While visiting a Jewish school we looked at their ciriculum and how they were taught. Not only were boys able to read Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic by 8th grade but they also highly encouraged critical thinking and were encouraged to question their teachers. Granted there are some answer that were simply "because God says so" but their critical thinking makes Jews some of the best scholars. The Ashkenazi Jews for example have won large number of Noble Awards. They account for 27% of the US Noble Prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing Awards dispite only make up 3% of the population. This is because of the critical thinking that is taught to them in their religious education.

Dispite their dogmatic beliefs it appears religious people do manage to make "advances" and contribute to this world. Also are we talking about the moral of monotheism or the morals of Buddhism? I can't recall the Buddhists being excessivly violent or "immoral."

I would also like to point out that many primitive religions were based on logic and inductive and deductive reasoning. The difference is they didn't know many of the things we know today and didn't have modern science. You seem to make the mistake that some of the early Religious Theorists made and that is using Christianity as your prime example. That is probably the single biggest reason Karl Marx's theory of religion was dismissed. It did not fit ALL religions.

Religion is bad if brought into the science class room or brought into government policy making but religious people are not inherently stupid.

Edit:

And by the way Church groups are the biggest contributors to things like the Red Cross. Church groups provided the most money and aid for Hurricane Katrina relief.

Another thing I guess I could metion. The Baha'i faith also encourages knowledge and learning and it is required. They believe in things such as the Big Bang and evolution. Also in the Baha'i faith a person has to make the decision to join. One cannot simply become a member because their parents were. They are required to do their own research and then make the decision to become a member.

Did I click DinahQueen's intro thread, or a debate thread about religion's effects on science?

 

If it was the former, hi Dinah! Welcome. What comics and video games are you into?

 

If it's the latter, I agree with both of you. Though, Spence, I'm pretty sure the Persians originated the concept of zero. As we saw with George W. Bush, Americans perfected it. *rimshot* Thank you, I'll be here all week!

 Welcome new poster.

Bob makes an excellent point, it's a category error fallacy to assume that because historically, religious people were conductive to primitive scientific discoveries, to assume that religion itself is conductive or beneficial to the same scientific process.  It is more likely that the only system that could act as a segue for Aristotelian principles were that of the early Islamic religion.  Religion was in fact the major system any sort of education for the majority of human history.  There was simply no alternative.  That gives no credit to religion itself.  In fact the darkages are a clear example of what religion has done to human knowledge.   

The thing is that we do not know exactly where or how religion came about. In many cultures there is no difference between culture and religion. The Islamic Empire is an example of this. Their civilization was based on their religion and their laws were based on the Quran. So if something came out of that society how can we say that it is not at least partly religious? And I am aware of the issues that came about with science and philosophy when they did not go along with the religious teaching but the point I am trying to make is the people that came up with this science and these philosophies were religious people. They were not atheists living in the Islamic Empire or whatever empire. They were those with dogmatic beliefs that were still able to make advances to human kind.

Buddhism is considered a religion or a world view. That does not work against some of my ideas but proves my point that we do not have a universal definition of religion. Many of the criticisms given to “religion” do not apply to Buddhism or other “religions.” One cannot make the claim that religion is this or that until you establish a definition of religion. We run into the same problems with morals. We cannot make claims on morality because we do not know exactly where morality comes from.

One of the reasons the Islamic Empire was able to get so much knowledge is because they ranged from Spain to India and they did incorporate knowledge from many different people. The question is why? Why did the European barbarians not care about the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans? Why were they letting texts fade away and cities crumble? In the Ancient Near East why were their periods of writing and then no writing but then writing again? Obviously it was something they did not care about or was not important to them, but why? Did religion play any role it?
 

See now you are speaking of the Abrahamic religions and not “religion” in general. I’m not going to try and argue that most scientists are not atheists or agnostic, because they are. But you act as if even though someone believes in a dogmatic religion they are incapable of doing science or thinking logically. Most believe what they do because they were taught it (or brainwashed) from an early age. It does not mean their entire lives are based illogical and flawed ideas. Some are…we call them young earth creationists or fundamentalists and they are dangerous to society but most are not like that. That would be like saying that all Muslims are terrorists which is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever heard.

Of course it not logical or scientific. A point I have made before is that does not matter to them. Some people do not need logic or empiricism but abductive reasoning alone. That is how their brain works and I think there could be an evolutionary/biological explanation for this. Let me ask you this…Have you ever sat down with a Christian or any other religious person and showed them the empirical, logical evidence and have them say “holy crap you are right! Thank you for showing me! I no longer believe in God!” I am willing to be that has happened very many times which is why I do no argue about religion. Yes a few people do this but how deeply religious were they in the first place? If they did change like that I would conclude they are the type of person that likes logic and empiricism. But why is it that the vast majority don’t change their mind? Because they don’t care…they don’t need logic. Abductive reasoning is enough for them. Yes, I think religion, for the most part, is illogical and worthless. But it does bring happiness to many people and it’s not going away. If it’s not going away what should we do? Should we understand them and accept them, or hang them all?
 

Hi Dinah, welcome! Sorry to sorry to derail your intro thread. I'll try to keep it short.

Athans: Every culture that ever produced any scientific knowledge has also been host to the flu virus. That doesn't make the flu virus responsible for their scientific acheivements.

It's ironic that you chose the survival of the ancient texts in Islamic culture as an example of religion 'preserving' them, because a big part of the reason why they were in danger in the first place was ... religion!

It's like saying: Thank goodness the rest of the world was infected with the typical flu when the Spanish Flu started wiping people out. It's not viruses that are dangerous, but fundamentalist Spanish Flu that's dangerous.

While this is literally true, it completely misses the point that viral transmission itself is the cause of outbreaks of dangerous viruses in the first place.

It's also ironic that you bequeath the scientific acheivements of some Muslims to the religion of Islam, which merely happened to be dominant in that region at that time, and merely happened to be in a less virulent phase of its evolution.

But embedded in the religion of Islam is an enormous fallacy of Argument from Authority, which these days gets called 'faith'. That is the difference between culture and religion, and that is the problem with religion in general.

Bob was right when he pointed out that using bad religious reasons for doing good things is ultimately far worse than using good non-religious reasons for doing the same good things. When a dogma is founded on faith, it doesn't matter how benign it happens to be currently, because faith itself is a bad idea, and will ultimately give rise to dangerous religious authoritarianism and the kind of enforced ignorance that led to the dark ages.

How much better off would we be today if a culture had existed back then which valued knowledge for knowledge's sake, and not simply because it was currently in vogue with the dominant faith in the region. The reason Islam is fucked today is precisely its basis in faith.

I'll paraphrase Hitchens' challenge: Name one thing that can be done in the name of religion that could not be done equally or better for non-religious reasons. (But actually if you want to reply to this, let's start another thread.)

 

LOL I don't think anybody here wants to hang people.

 

On the other hand while the RRS claims to cheer for science and knowledge, they reject the actual empirical evidence of why humans fight and hate each other and just pin it on religion. In a way it's worse thinking than religion, because it's claiming a solution, but it's not a solution and takes away from the actual cause. You'll get used to it over time and will learn when to pick your battles.

 

While I don't think they want to hang people, their ideas are just as bad if not worse.

 

 

 

And if I haven't made it clear I don't agree with religious people and I am an agnostic atheist but they are not to blame for all of the worlds problems.

And if I did't already say so, Sup dinahqueen??

 

I disagree, I do think we can get people off of religion. It just takes scientific and critical thinking and we need to set the example of that. It also requires something to replace it rather than just *poof* it disappears.

 

 

I agree with Pineapple. 

Using skin colors as an analog for religious beliefs is quite strange. I interpret it as implying that religious peoples' beliefs are so set in stone that it is essentially impossible to change them. Of course, in the case of skin color, one could not change it even if they wanted to.

Anyways, many of the people on this forum used to be Christians, and that, by itself, demonstrates that it is clearly possible to change a religious person's thinking. It's not a simple matter; it's not like a Muslim will immediately admit the fallacies in their arguments once I point them out. Perhaps I need to make feel comfortable, remove their need for their crutch, conformity, etc., and then, in some complex way, they will slowly deconvert. What you're asserting here is too absolute.

I'm not sure what your problem with natural's post is either. The point is that if there was a culture back then that valued knowledge, then the world today would be better off. That there wasn't a culture like this is implied in the point being made. And, the suggestion is precisely to convince people to value reason and knowledge rather than faith.

 O_o! My poor thread! 

 

XD Debate away! 

Thanks for all of the warm welcomes though. [And I wanted to make the aside that I know that religion isn't the only thing that is wrong with people's ways of thinking, it just seems to be the root cause of their racism/sexism/homophobia etc.] 

 

I like Marvel comics, specifically the Avengers! And I like the Justice League too. But I prefer back issues as opposed to the current comic canons. For video games, I enjoy ARPGs, RPGs, fighting games, shooter games, puzzle games, platformers- well, basically everything, really. Right now I'm playing Sacred 2 with my fiance and eagerly awaiting Dungeon Siege III to come out. :D 

 I want to start by apologizing to the OP again, Sorry for posting off topic.

Very good and detailed response Natural, as always.  I just want to throw in my two cents.

It's not religion specifically that I am against, but irrationality.  When I hear something that doesn't jive, I get that itch in the back of my mind... like something doesn't fit, and I need to say/do something about it.  Likewise, if I'm being irrational and later corrected, I usually feel a bit foolish, but I'm always grateful for having been corrected.  I would hope it's like that for most people.  

I understand where you're coming from with your 'live and let live' attitude, but bottom line is, I can't tolerate something that promotes intolerance.  I can't tolerate someone that's being irrational, and then has the audacity to call my point of view wrong; has the self righteousness to call me immoral; has the innate drive to demonize me.  It's insulting to my standards to just stand by and let such intellectual vomit go unchallenged.  

I try to challenge all irrational claims, such as homeopathy, porn stars against vaccinations, and the majority of paranormal garbage.  Religion has such devout apologists that it requires more energy than most.  It is also by far the most prevailing, and most damaging both intellectually and morally, of all irrationalities.  

I guess I'm just built to point out the shit that doesn't fit.  You can say it's in my nature.

 

Hi, Dinah.  I had an aunt named Dinah.  And my grandmother was born in Michigan.  So we have a few things in common.  Welcome from Portland, OR.  Unfortunately, like my avatar, I really am an old woman - well, I could be older, I hope I will get older.  After all, what is the alternative?  Older is my first choice.

I like to game, but I prefer flash games on my laptop.  I'm not into online or game station games.  Maybe it is because my hand-eye coordination has always sucked and so I get killed early and often.  So I play the slower paced games.  Penny Dreadfuls - Sweeney Todd is great fun and the Mystery Case Files series has some wicked and fun puzzles. 

And having read some of the discussion here - just skimming because I am taking classes and finals are next week and I really should be studying - I have to agree with your simple statement.  No, I don't believe religion is the cause of all evil in the world.  People are perfectly capable of being the source of all evil without any assistance from either religion or the devil.  My issue is ignorance - deliberate ignorance.  I have had many people say to me - on forums and to my face - that my facts may be correct, but they don't care.  They are going to believe.  And I think that leads us to "put your troubles in the lap of Jesus" who apparently can't be bothered to help you solve those troubles.  And it also gets us "god did it".  Neither attitude furthers knowledge or healthy lifestyles.

And I also agree that just eradicating religion will not stop people from being irrational or delusional.  But i wish we could figure out how to reduce deliberate ignorance, irrationalities and delusions.  Maybe some changes in our educational system - though I am not a teacher and do not believe I have any authority on that subject.

Anyway, post early and often.  Love to have you around.

 

Why do you insist on defending superstition OF ANY KIND?

First off, the good done by any label is done, not because of a label. but because of human evolution and empathy. If you are willing to give credit to religion for doing some things good, then you should be equally willing to place blame squarely where it belongs. The Dark Ages are a direct result of the idea of a dead man on a stick being bought and sold. If the bible had never been written, there would have been no one to read it and use it as a weapon against others.

You keep confusing issues here with us. No one here is disputing human rights or the right to claim something we disagree with. But that does not mean ANY CLAIM ON ANY SUBJECT, deserves taboo status.

Sam Harris is an atheist with a hint of Buddhist woo he likes to peddle. I think he is an extremely smart man, and most certainly against religious tyranny and oppression. But that does not mean, just because he shares the same label as I that his claims should get a pass. Other atheists like Victor Stinger criticize some of his positions as much as you see us criticizing religion.

Social clubs are part of our human evolution, grouping is what our species do because we are social animals. But just because a group does good(and normally only good for it's own group and ideology and politics), that does not make the gods they flock around real just because it provides a societal structure.

The ancient Egyptians were successful for a 3,000 years, and their survival for that time was due to their social club in believing that the sun was a god. That did not make the sun an acutally god. BUT that belief, for whatever "good" it provided in continuing the club, was harmed by the willful ignorance in swallowing the sun being a god.

You confuse issues here. Human rights are not the issue. The harm done by ANY naked assertion is sacrificing the opportunity to observe and test and verify reality in favor of a placebo. Imagine how much further humans would have been if some Egyptian back then refused to accept that social norm of the sun being a god.Comfort can come through wishful thinking. The problem with religion is that it goes way beyond merely a social club, like stamp collecting and sports clubs, and seeks political power and dominance over others. As long as people seek power, religion should never be free from scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

Places that are worth being aren't always comfortable all the time. In any case, informed, broadminded and morally consistent opinions are always welcome...

 

Great points, AE, IMO.

You totally should read Irredeemable and Incorruptible, Dinah. Fairly new (started in 2009) and is brilliant all throughout.

I am curious, what do you think could or should replace religion as "the central organizing force of society"?

In the USA, we've had the myth that liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the organizing force and shared world-view, with either religion or the pursuit of wealth as the organizing force in many subcultures. But we've pretty much reached the breaking point because one person's liberty becomes another person's burden. So I think the current system will collapse.

The problem with Marxism and the American capitalist systems is that they are 'myths' in that they not backed with scientific evidence, but with fanatical adherents. It would be nice if we could get to a point were the organizing force is something demonstrated to work with good science, but that would take a miracle.