posted
I'll go back and try to compile them if I have time (work, blech, but it must be done) <edit> work meaning my job, not the going back to find problems with the analysis. That's just fun. </edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My perspective: If one is always trying to better understand reality and how God fits into it, there is always searching, inquiry, and growth
It's the "and how God fits into it" that I find problems with. Other than that, I am in perfect agreement with your statement.
But with that addition, you create a number of problems. First and foremost, your statement presumes that God exists, since He is somehow "fitting into reality". How much time should I devote to seeing how invisible turtles fit into reality, for instance?
From what I've learned about this "God" thing (as people have described It to me), if He exists, and if He "fits into reality," then He only fits into reality at the very, very beginning, as an alternate to "We don't know how the universe was created," in that one can now say, "God created the universe, but we don't know how God was created." And that's about it. Everything else is unproven conjecture (as is the first statement).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the very idea of no heaven and hell is damaging. Why worry about not killing people when you know there is no eternal accountability. Why worry about apologizing to people, when it doesn't matter you after they die.
I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished. I think this level of functioning is completely devoid of morality.
quote: You see, I'd chalk that up to the interpreters and teachers of the religion teaching incorrect information. Being religious, I believe that when true religion is taught, there is no disparity with reality. That this is often not the case is lamentable.
I don't know if I entirely follow. There is a great degree of disparity of beliefs within every religion. If it was so clear that there was no disparity, I don't see how this could happen. People interpret things differently. While I think that the ideal is that religion would encourage people to grow as you suggest, it seems clear that this isn't always the case. Sometimes it allows people to become set in their beliefs and instead of seeing it as their personal perspective, they believe they have the authority of God backing them up in whatever it is they think is right. I don't think this is dependent on how a religion is taught, but is instead dependent on the type of person who is doing the learning.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best argument for relligion being (potentially) damaging to a society is simply that of nature attempting to find balance. In any religious society, especially those where fundamentalism or extremism is prevalent, the tendency for some or many to rebel against the prevalent moral teachings is higher, thus there would be more theft, more sexual promiscuity or murder, ect. ect. This sort of increase in "immorality" is only temporary, as the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. England, as the study says is a "secular democracy" but it wasn't always secular.
Just as one year there will be an abundance of deer, so the wolves thrive. The next year there are too many wolves and not enough deer so they begin to die out. Fewer wolves means that the Deer can prosper and so on and so on.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But with that addition, you create a number of problems. First and foremost, your statement presumes that God exists, since He is somehow "fitting into reality". How much time should I devote to seeing how invisible turtles fit into reality, for instance?
Ok, so some people see "God" as a dead end, some people see "God" as a place holder of sorts, and some people see "God" as the foundation of the pursuit of knowledge. Each of these types of people are going to be searching for knowledge in different ways, so what does it matter to you how other people spend their time searching for knowledge?
Or should people should only pursue knowledge in the interests that you think are important?
quote:I have yet to meet anyone that has adopted religion because they are scared of surrounding crime. I have more often seen people doubt G-d's existence because the crime exists.
Stephan, Or crime and world events might cause some people to believe in certain Biblical prophecies, or it might cause people to search for a hope beyond complete nonexistence, or it might cause some people to question their assumptions about the meaning and purpose of life. There are a lot of possibilities that could end with someone turning to religion, maybe you haven't met examples of them, but that hardly means they don't exist.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished. I think this level of functioning is completely devoid of morality.
Yes, that's sort of the point being made. You can find any number of religious people who argue that religion must be retained because otherwise there is no morality. Either those people haven't thought it through, or they really do think this way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is impossible for some people in this community to discuss religion without sneering in every post, even when complaining about the intolerence of the religious. There's some human nature for you, Mr. Squicky.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Or crime and world events might cause some people to believe in certain Biblical prophecies, or it might cause people to search for a hope beyond complete nonexistence, or it might cause some people to question their assumptions about the meaning and purpose of life. There are a lot of possibilities that could end with someone turning to religion, maybe you haven't met examples of them, but that hardly means they don't exist.
From what I have seen people that find paralells between crime and world events and bible prophecies already have faith in G-d. Converts from one religion to another of course I am not counting. It is a lot easier to make an atheist then a believer.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, here's a quick list of some of the things I object to (from a logical perspective) in the study. It's neither exhaustive nor carefully worded:
First, here's his thesis:
quote:If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations?
That "impact" sounds like an implication of causality to me. An implication which isn't borne out by the analysis.
Then, there's a section on the belief that religion is socially beneficial, which he sets up specifically with the intent of refuting. But he doesn't really refute it; to do so (I think) would again require a causality study which he doesn't do. And he doesn't do it, as he says, because it would be too difficult. The reason it's too difficult, as Will pointed out, is that the data he's using just can't support it, which he as much as admits here:
quote:Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex... Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results, and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors.
I'm not sure what he means by "fairly consistent characteristics of the sample", but I read it as an equivalence not only among subpopulations within countries, but also between most industrialized Western cultures, which he certainly gives no support for and I would tend to reject.
My major issue is that he's using population statistics by country to substantiate arguments about effects (again, causality; he gives a correlation disclaimer but implies causality throughout) of religion on societies. Treating countries as homogenous societies is a bad model and will lead to a flawed analysis. Again, Will said this in his post, and I'm just seconding it. These data by nature cannot be used effectively to substantiate the claims (IMO).
I also have problems are statements like this:
quote:The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health.
He fails to adequately define what metrics he's using here for wealth and cultural and physical health. Or, rather, he uses the single metric of spending on health care as a portion of GDP and per capita as a figure of merit, rather than one among many metrics contributing to a figure of merit. And coming up with an appropriate metric for "physical and cultural health" is a ridiculously flawed concept in and of itself.
quote:The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample
Assume away non-supportive data. He does cite another study here which I haven't looked up, but he should at least have stated why this assertion is valid.
quote: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.
How rare? If they truly are rare statistically then they shouldn't be used to draw conclusions. Also, is this per capita? He doesn't say. How severe were they? Absent. There's no analysis; it's a random fact.
These were just a quick look through. If I printed it off to edit it, I would have covered the paper with red ink. I would be ashamed to submit something this muddled for publication, and the editor that chose to print it should be ashamed for having done so.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I don't believe there is anywhere in the bible that G-d says to create organized religion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep concluding this after examining researchers: They're under Satans control.
No seriously, just look at this 1 sided article:
1. Its primary purpose is to turn people away from God. 2. It propagandises evolution. Yes, this is my opinion only but I find evolution an invention of the communists. It works nicely though, "oh my we emerged from the monkehs!" Oh yeah? Prove it. I always keep getting this shit from materialists that "if God exists, prove it!" Well they can start proving their stupid evolution theory to me too.
How can someone tell from 2 discovered jaws that the "caveman" was THIS turtous, THIS hairy THIS ape skull shaped and that they couldn't speak.
Infact it doesn't even prove that it's from a human.
This wouldn't be an issue if materialists just kept to their own propaganda. Instead, they resort on rediculing people who believe.
Now on to the final point I'd like to make:
3. Once again, for the x'th time, the author of this article fails to see that it's not God who commits the crimes, but people in his name.
Now if I kill someone and I call myself a Christian- does it mean God is evil? No. God is still cool, I am just a fake.
Yet, our dear darwinists can't get past this and go:
OMG IF AT LEAST 1 CHRISTIAN IS COMMITTING SINS THEN GOD MUST NOT EXIST !!!
It has been long known to true followers of God that organised religion is not representing him. Note: It is still not right to hate anyone. For example I don't advise anyone to join the catholic/reformed/evangelical/babtist churches since for me there are many contradictions in their conventions but there are good brothers and sisters in those churches too. It is another question that the leaders in those churches don't really stand in Gods eyes .
"But hey, if I can throw shit at religious people I won't pass my chance!" - the scientist idea.
It is vital to note that the levels of slaughter amongst humans drastically increased after "evolution" became dominant. Lets put our creator aside, everything is allowed! See world wars, america policing the world (obviously not for "innocent lives, and justice")
Sorry everyone, I got a bit aired up. I hate it when (supposedly.) cultured, intelligent, crafty people devote time into writing obviously wrong and 1 sided articles.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The journal article quotes Dostoyevsky "if God does not exist, then everything is permissible." I think bev has said something similar (as a response to an earlier post; I think an offhand comment is maybe getting too much attention Amanecer and KoM). But maybe I'm one of those that "really think that way," KoM.
I've asked this in other threads, perhaps unclearly, but I don't understand how atheists justify the concept of non-religious morality. What pupose does it serve? What impetus is there to do "good"? How do you even define "good" absent God? This is not intended disrespectfully; I sincerely don't understand.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I've asked this in other threads, perhaps unclearly, but I don't understand how atheists justify the concept of non-religious morality. What pupose does it serve? What impetus is there to do "good"? How do you even define "good" absent God? This is not intended disrespectfully; I sincerely don't understand.
Coming from a mainly atheist family I can tell you my experiences regarding your question.
They don't go that far in thinking, infact, they don't wonder what their purpose in life is "why they exist".
A more radical difference is that they accept everything, even from the occult.
As long as it doesn't involve the god named Jehova, all is good. I can understand them, for most atheists (as i noted in my previous reply) are turned away by those whose wellfare depends on people not knowing what the god wants from them.
It's not hard, it takes a few historical notes of "holy wars" inquisition, witch hunting, yada yada.
Oh yes and the communist invention: Pictures of cavemans with stupid big bulky faces and clubs.
To sum it up: They don't care at all.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj - That's a question I've asked myself a million times. One of my best friends is atheist, and is a good, kind soul. There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you're saying that I'm supporting the main point of the study, that belief in god is damaging to a society, than I disagree. I think there are many benefits as well as some cons to such a belief, but I am unconvinced that the cons outweigh the benefits. I do not think that the line of reasoning I quoted is inseperable from faith. Many religious people on this forum have stated they do not think this way.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you're saying that I'm supporting the main point of the study, that belief in god is damaging to a society, than I disagree. I think there are many benefits as well as some cons to such a belief, but I am unconvinced that the cons outweigh the benefits. I do not think that the line of reasoning I quoted is inseperable from faith. Many religious people on this forum have stated they do not think this way.
What are the cons ? I'm willing to discuss, so don't worry, this isn't flamebait.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The earlier point about grouping is probably the most damning thing against the report. Maybe population plays into it as well, and urban/rural mix.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty: The earlier point about grouping is probably the most damning thing against the report. Maybe population plays into it as well, and urban/rural mix.
Uh what do you mean? I don't get it seriously, can you explain? (english is not my main language so it can get to me sometimes )
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much time should I devote to seeing how invisible turtles fit into reality, for instance?
I was more thinking of matters like: What is really important? What should I be striving towards? For me, God and what He taught factors heavily into that. So, it isn't so much "God" as "the Word of God".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
You misunderstand me. I never said that I believed that anyone felt that they weere "immune" to hell. But think: do you know of anyone who really thinks that they are going to hell? Not that, "If I do this, or if I don't do that, I am going to hell," but "I really, truly will be going to hell when I die."
That's not a fair question. For most poeople I believe it's impossible to be someone who will go to hell or will not go to hell, ignoring anything that they may or may not do in the future.
quote: And how many people do you know that you know full well that they are prime candidates for the eternal flames, but who themselves think that they are (somehow) OK?
There is no person that I know full well will go to hell.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished.
I never claimed this to be the way *I* thought. But I don't see how it is OK to say it one way and not OK the other.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is with various people who believe they are doing good, who see themselves as holy, but really they are evil because they seek to control people. By controling people they lead to rebels, or to all sorts of dissent in the church, and it's also viewing those on the other side as agents of the devil... I don't know what to do about that. middle ground is required, but it seems like that will never happen.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess my point is that the size of a country and the population density might have an effect. Does crime happen more often in urban areas? Are urban or rural areas more secular? I tend to think we're influenced just as much by our local surroundings as by our country / continent of origin. Prime example in the US - the eastern and western coasts (which are the most populated areas) are generally more liberal than the central states, which are more sparsely populated. Or heck, maybe it has something to do with saltwater, heck, I don't know. The point is, there are a HECK of a lot more variables than country.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.
From my perspective: It is the teachings of God that help us know how best to *be* moral. How many people in this world have been deeply touched by the words of great teachers in regard to *how* to be moral? I believe that scripture is an excellent source of this, and because of my beliefs in specific scripture, I believe it teaches *correct* morality.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.
Stephen, how do you define morality? What makes one action "good" and another "bad"? What is the logical reason for acting "morally"?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think this is dependent on how a religion is taught, but is instead dependent on the type of person who is doing the learning.
This isn't true, for example the catholic church has a lot of fake teachings and a lot of kind but lazy people (who don't bother to read the Bible, yes, most catholics ignore the bible) are pulled into it. They gulp down every word the minister says, and this is bad, even the Bible says
"Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD." (Lamentations 3,40)
This is where you're wrong, most Christians don't search or try. Learning is not possible without searching for wisdom or trying to acquire it.
PLUS!! A lot of people are not gifted with the abilities to understand the Bible on their own, so they turn to others to teach them, this is also written in the Bible, I don't remember exactly, but trust me, it is there. God didn't tell mankind to learn everything alone, that's not possible.
This is where fake, money-driven teachings come in.
quote: Being religious, I believe that when true religion is taught, there is no disparity with reality. That this is often not the case is lamentable.
I can highly agree with you on that, it's often the mentors who screw it all up.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are any number of things apart from gods that can give you morality. There's the primate sense of justice; children of three have a quite well-developed sense of what is fair, and so do chimpanzees. Then there's enlightened self-interest : I prefer a society with these kinds of laws, and therefore it is in my interest to follow and enforce those laws.
There is also the problem of where does morality come from if a god is involved : Is X good because your god says so? Then why can't Y be good because I say so? Conversely, if X is good independent of your god's dictation, then what is the need for the god in the first place? Morality from god is just a variant of morality from the guy with the biggest axe.
And BadGuy, your comments regarding evolution are so stupid I intend to ignore them completely. Just so you know. But if you actually want to learn something, you can go here.Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This wouldn't be an issue if materialists just kept to their own propaganda. Instead, they resort on rediculing people who believe.
We also ridicule people who can't spell, and who use poor grammatical construction.
But seriously, "God" is certainly not required for morality. And, in fact, there are plenty of instances of "Godly" people acting horribly immoral. And, as I'm sure you're eager to point out, you can get immorality from atheists as well. It's really more a matter of the person than the religion.
My favorite discussion with a devoutly religious friend of mine: "Steve, you've been faithful to your wife for the entire time you've known her, through the good times and the bad. I've been faithful to mine, too--but I've had the fear of Hell hanging over my head, so I really didn't have much of a choice! You did have a choice; you've got no such 'fear.' I'm impressed!" We had a good laugh at that one!
Think, if you would...why would a Godless atheist maintain a sense of personal morality and societal ethics? I'll be back later with one possible answer.
quote:There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.
The religion in which I put my faith doctrinally teaches that all people are born with a spark of the divine in them that guides them towards goodness--if they will listen to that part of them. Therefore, a belief in God is not required to live a moral, just life.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't true, for example the catholic church has a lot of fake teachings and a lot of kind but lazy people (who don't bother to read the Bible, yes, most catholics ignore the bible) are pulled into it.
you are wrong about this, in many ways.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.
The religion in which I put my faith doctrinally teaches that all people are born with a spark of the divine in them that guides them towards goodness--if they will listen to that part of them. Therefore, a belief in God is not required to live a moral, just life.
What religion might I ask? Thats a great belief system.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was pretty impressed with Bev's post myself, although ssywak kind of illustrated my point - how does an atheist describe where his sense of morality came from?
Edit: Apparently spelling isn't my strong suit
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should an atheist have morality, ssywak? If an atheist is correct about the nature (or lack thereof) of the divine, if there is no God or god or gods, then we really have no reason for being here. We just happened.
Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?
An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For example, the abstinence only programs try very hard to get kids not to have sex, but they fail pretty miserably...
Inaccurate. I don't believe that abstinence-only programs have as good a success rate as comprehensive sex ed programs that also stress abstinence, but abstinence-only programs are better than no programs at all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why should an atheist have morality, ssywak? If an atheist is correct about the nature (or lack thereof) of the divine, if there is no God or god or gods, then we really have no reason for being here. We just happened.
Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?
An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.
Because a piece of you lives on forever through your children and their children. For me, if I were an atheist, this would be good enough. The desire to create a better world for your children should be instinctual.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Listen if you tell me what ways I am wrong in I will accept your opinion, but I can't really reply nodding that "okay, I am wrong in many ways"
Yet you seem fine just saying, "The Catholic Church is wrong in many ways."
Why is it OK for you to make a single-sentence conclusory post about a 2000-year old church without even bothering to explain yourself?
So why don't YOU first bother to explain even one of these so-called false teachings, and then I can respond.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why should an atheist have morality, ssywak? If an atheist is correct about the nature (or lack thereof) of the divine, if there is no God or god or gods, then we really have no reason for being here. We just happened.
Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?
An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.
I can only agree with your questions, now we need someone to answer them (apart from knowing we were given free will by God, I can't help you further, you need an atheist to answer those questions)
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: you are wrong about this, in many ways.
So you're saying the catholic church (being the largest politically accepted church) doesn't falsely teach its lambs?
Listen if you tell me what ways I am wrong in I will accept your opinion, but I can't really reply nodding that "okay, I am wrong in many ways"
Perhaps explain?
Well I do give Catholics a lot of credit for improvement. Anyone correct me I'm wrong but their official doctrine seems to be getting more liberal then most Christians. Jesus is the preferred path, but not the only one. The bible should not be taken 100% literally.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.
Of course we are (I'll lump myself in even though I'm not dogmatic enough to be an atheist). Our higher standards include community, patriotism, family, self-image, and justice. None of those require a deity or an afterlife. My life and the lives of those around me are improved if I am trustworthy and good. If I choose to break the laws my society has created I will be outcast and will suffer.
Here's a comment I included in my landmark post:
"I call myself apatheist, but I'm closer to areligious. Religious belief simply has no relevance or impact on my life, except where my life is affected by people with religious beliefs. I'm not disdainful of religion, I recognize it's importance to society and our history, and I strongly believe that without religion it would have taken the human race much longer to achieve civilization, assuming it has. And I have absolutely no opinion regarding which religion, if any, may be true. I'll find out eventually, or not, and it helps me stay respectful when I talk to religionists about their beliefs. In the meantime I endeavor to be a good person anyway. There is satisfaction in making the world a better place, there is joy in making others happy, there is peace in making others comforted, there is strength in integrity, and there is confidence that comes from never doing anything you would be ashamed to admit to."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to answer for Beverly, but if you refer to that "spark" as the Holy Spirit, then it is perfectly orthodox for many Christian religions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
</edit>
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(apart from knowing we were given free will by God, I can't help you further, you need an atheist to answer those questions)
