August 8th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Just a question. As I already said before I think a lot about religion. I've had a lot of people knocking on my door to tell me the true message of Christ. Though...Why believe in God or a god?
What can religion do for us? Does it make us a better person? Wil we understand the meanig of life? Wil it give us eternal live or anything? Wil believers have live afther dead or is it just a way of thinking and can't it really be explained?
meaning of life, no becuase we already know that
eternal life, no becuase its physical impossible
religion gives you nothing but hopes and dreams for things that isnt real
I ask you zelos: have you ever met a buddhist who wasn't completely happy? Who did not have an extreme amount of wisdom to teach people? You sau religion gives us nothing yet without religion science would not have begun.
You are simply acting on the 'paranormal' region of religion. Whether these ideas are true or not, religion is very, very important.
August 9th, 2006, 02:01 PM
I'm an atheist, but I guess religion plays an important role in society. It gives to average people meaning to their lives and motivation to keep going...Originally Posted by Artemis
On the other side it is an important method to mantain social order and keep big amounts of people under control (for good or bad purposes), it helps to focus eveyone's efforts in one same direction ¿get my point there?
without religion science would have gone of much better, religion have drawn back science atleast 100 years id say maybe even 400 years.
buddhist? i have heard them talk about their "wisdom". its nothing but nonsense. if its not nonsense its commonsense
im happy aswell, really happy. but no one have no bad times where he/she dont feel a bit down. no matter what religion. But this downs might be insignifican becuase of someones posetive attitude
In my opinion, religion gives us nothing but suffering...
I admit that it might help some people to survive trough hard
times or give them happiness but in the end this path will take
you to misunderstandings and hatred between fundamentalistic
minds.
Think about war... Most wars that man has ever fought, has some
religous (or other ideological) base in them...
-> I compared ideology to religion since most powerfull of them
-> are filled with blind belief to something better.
Think all that double-faced acts that are played to keep up peoples
interest to religion (like those "miracolous-healing" fests, where
the Holy men try to convince that their God has given the might
of healing to their possession. I visited one of them and somehow
I managed to piss of that poor priest -> Apperantly I am a spawn
of a Demon)...
And the morale...
>>You're good as long you're with us - othervise
>>you're nothing but a malicious fiend that should be destroyed"
What about those "holy" promises to help those who doesn't have
much (the poor and the sick)?
And what does the church (I have seen this in many countries)?
>>Well that is a very hard problem indeed...
>>But if you could give me some money I think I can talk to God
>>to aid you and I am more than sure He will help you.
And can I ask, where is those great virtues like compassion
("Bah, It was right for you. You cursed atheistic sovinist),
sympathy ("You're absolutely WRONG!!! Only the Bible is the TRUTH!!!"),
respectation ("Hah, all atheist are nothing but a drunken bums.
but when the Second coming starts you all will see the Truth
and then it is too late for you satan worshipping sovinist to have
salvation, since you're nothing but scumbags that should be destroyed")
and all other?
I apologize if my reply insults someone. I know that there are some
"good" religious people (with this term I mean people who aren't
going to hang you if you say that you don't believe like they do),
and I even know some, but what I have seen, they all just
try to find a way to use you... And mostly your money.
Religion is just something else to divide people. i never understand people saying it gives them morals to live by. Im an athiest always have been and ive got good morals.
All the world needs is more empathy, not religion, if i had my way i'd ban it all.
In this day and age we dont need it like early man to make sense of things we don't understand like they needed.
The world would be better without it
It can give you a moral code and values.. that´s it, good for thinking...
You wouldn't have morals or values without a religion to give them to you?
my fist can do that aswellIt can give you a moral code and values.. that´s it, good for thinking...
But if religion gives us nothing but everything we already had, wouldn't it be gone for long by now than? Most things that aren't usefull don't last verry long but i'd say religion does last quite long. It's been there eversince the beginning of humanlife. There must be something that religion gives the people that follow it. Otherwise it would be nothing more than living to an extra pair of rules.
Some are too lazy to take the time to define their own morals and understanding of the world, so they hang on to something else in order to keep themselves sane and somewhat righteous.
religion is just a crutch for the weak minded. some people cant accept the fact of life being hard and when you die, it aint nice and you dont go anywhere. thats why it has lasted "fear"
all religion does is blackmail its followers, do this and you'll be rewarded and don't do this or you'll suffer. plain and simple emotional blackmail
like i said before i'm an athiest, never had any religion in my life and i have excellent morals, obviously dont follow all the bs rules of religion but my empathy for fellow men is all i need. i dont steal, hurt or oppress people, i treat them with respect, kindness to strangers etc. this never came from religion just from the rule of "treat as you would like to be treated"
Look at the world around you religion destroys everything, the world is falling apart because of religion not because of the lack of it
August 10th, 2006, 07:16 AM
there is nothing that religion can teach you, other than how to kill your neighbour.
religion preaches hate, intolerence, cruelty, injustice, and thats just the mild stuff.
some will say that religion gives us morals, wrong.
out of the 19 major religions and 270 minor ones, and the 34,000 christian sects morals remain relative, we recieve our basic morals, from our parents, after that it's our own sense of what is right, it take religion to change those common morals to evil ones, if we succumb to the mind virus.
nobody really wants to die, religion takes away that problem, which unfortunately leaves the religious with no respect for human life, they seem to think, theres something better to look forward to, and thus forgive those that kill, after all children learn by example, god kills we kill, that what they believe, the mind virus of religion is the most evil of things on this planet, and we badly need to find a cure.
we will always have religion, as long as people continue wishing for an afterlife, when the realise there is'nt one, they will respect theirs and other peoples lifes more.
i dont want to die but i dont care i shall die becuase i have to die
So actualy you all are saying religion is bad, or at least useless. Then we'dd better get rid of it?
But how, if religion is this bad, is it possible that the religious people do not see this or at least do not pay atention to it?
why didnt germany notice nazism were bad when hitler were in control?
I must refer you back to my last post, that is the reason "fear of death" and the lack of common sense, their will to live on, out ways their logic.
Got a point. Though the problem of germany was that nobody did realy know what was going on. They knew Hitler was having war and they knew he didn't like yews. But wat they didn't know was that he was actualy killing and murdering. Everybody, even in germany, believed that they were send to work camps. And finaly you'l probably get to the point geezer tries to make clear. Fear can do a lot to the human brain.
Stil i find this religios thing stupid. Hundreds of people causing problems because of nothing!
August 10th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Belief in God is the first step in understanding who and what you are.Just a question. As I already said before I think a lot about religion. I've had a lot of people knocking on my door to tell me the true message of Christ. Though...Why believe in God or a god?
Belif in a god or gods, is usually no better than any material belief or understanding.
It can make you a better human being.What can religion do for us? Does it make us a better person?
The meaning of life is understood on different levels of consciousness, the point of believing in God is to eventually become a loving servant of God, this is our constitutional position. It is through lust, greed, envy, pride etc.. that we see ourselves as masters. :wink:Wil we understand the meanig of life?
Breifly: Real religion is understanding that we are not these physical manifestations, that we are the pervading consciousness which pervades them (soul).Wil it give us eternal live or anything? Wil believers have live afther dead or is it just a way of thinking and can't it really be explained?
That this soul is part and parcel of God therefore eternal. The point of religion is to help the individual come to that understanding, by living a certain life-style, attaining a level of purity of thought and action.
Jan.
Then if you choose to live as someone who believes in God: how important is it to live to all of the rules there are within the religion? I think there must be atleast one rule or something like it that you don't understand or disagree with. (The use of condoms for example) Is it important to follow this rule annyway? Is religion realy just folowing God blindly?
Artemis,
Then if you choose to live as someone who believes in God: how important is it to live to all of the rules there are within the religion?
It is important to try to attain the level by following the regulative principles subscribed.
If that was the case, then one isn't ready to adhere to the principles of religion.I think there must be atleast one rule or something like it that you don't understand or disagree with.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, please elaborate further.(The use of condoms for example) Is it important to follow this rule annyway? Is religion realy just folowing God blindly?
Jan.
What I meant is how much do you have to "sacrafice" (i know it isn't the right word but i couldn't find anything else) for God. Is religion realy just doing what God wats, or even just what people say that God wants.
A lot of people get aids becouse they don't use Condoms, just as the pope would like it. If you know you might get aids, would you still have to follow the rules and skip the condoms?
I think you are meant to skip the sex.
To all religious people, look at the world around you. The world we are living in, is in a right mess and you still choose to follow religion. jan ardena your living in a country that is being put under pressure from islamic idiots who think they will be rewarded for killing innocent people, all cause of religion.
ALL Religion is a cult, no different from the nutters in waco, blindly following rules and stipulations on their life without question.
When i was a kid i read loads of story books, grimm fairy tales etc, nice stories, nice morals. But i grew up and left the fantasy world behind.
Religion is a "crutch to weak minded people" in its weakest most moderate form and a "mental illness" to devout or hardened religious people
The sooner ALL religion is gone the better for the world to get on with important things
This isn't an attack on any one person on here just against religion itself
wrong, done it without god(s)Belief in God is the first step in understanding who and what you are.
wrongBelif in a god or gods, is usually no better than any material belief or understanding.
can you do on your ownit can make you a better human being.
wrong, we already know the meaning of lifeThe meaning of life is understood on different levels of consciousness, the point of believing in God is to eventually become a loving servant of God, this is our constitutional position. It is through lust, greed, envy, pride etc.. that we see ourselves as masters.
wrong, we are nothing more than our bodiesBreifly: Real religion is understanding that we are not these physical manifestations, that we are the pervading consciousness which pervades them (soul).
That this soul is part and parcel of God therefore eternal. The point of religion is to help the individual come to that understanding, by living a certain life-style, attaining a level of purity of thought and action.
[quote]
Ultimately, your attachment to material desires. Not such a "sacrifice" as it is a development of human intelligence.What I meant is how much do you have to "sacrafice" (i know it isn't the right word but i couldn't find anything else) for God.
I explained briefly what religion was in my previous post, anything other than that is irreligion.Is religion realy just doing what God wats, or even just what people say that God wants.
A serious practioner of religion loses the taste for illicit sexual relations, so for him/her there is no such problem.A lot of people get aids becouse they don't use Condoms, just as the pope would like it. If you know you might get aids, would you still have to follow the rules and skip the condoms?
Jan.
wrong, done it without god(s)Belief in God is the first step in understanding who and what you are.
That is your level of understanding, which, in the bigger scheme of things doesn't add up to much.
wrongBelif in a god or gods, is usually no better than any material belief or understanding.
Why? People generally believe in a particular god or gods for material benefit.
can you do on your ownit can make you a better human being.
How so?
wrong, we already know the meaning of lifeThe meaning of life is understood on different levels of consciousness, the point of believing in God is to eventually become a loving servant of God, this is our constitutional position. It is through lust, greed, envy, pride etc.. that we see ourselves as masters.
What is it?
And who is this "we"?
wrong, we are nothing more than our bodiesBreifly: Real religion is understanding that we are not these physical manifestations, that we are the pervading consciousness which pervades them (soul).
That this soul is part and parcel of God therefore eternal. The point of religion is to help the individual come to that understanding, by living a certain life-style, attaining a level of purity of thought and action.
You're entitled to your opinion. :wink:
Jan.
You don't understand what religion is and as a result are too easily lead.
Jan.
I'm easily leadYou don't understand what religion is and as a result are too easily lead.
Jan.
I'm not religious therefore not easily lead, easily lead would be to believe what is written in a book and take what is written is true and base your life around it, , i know exactly what religion is, explain to me what it is, as you know so much about me.
Religion to me is a man made idea to control people with fear and carrot on stick rewards. Therefore" betray me and spend eternity in hell, do as i say and you will be in eternal heaven, dont worry that theres no proof of me, we will just call that faith"
It also always makes me laugh that all religious places/organisations are never poor, so not only do they get puppets on a string they get their money too
now thats easily lead
[quote]
I'm glad you agree.I'm easily lead
You are deeply religious, but the central point to your religion is not God, but the complete opposite of God. (Satanism).I'm not religious therefore not easily lead,
The aim of your (ir)religion is to destroy God (mentally), which is why you are so unreasonable.
Why?...easily lead would be to believe what is written in a book and take what is written is true and base your life around it,
Based on what I've read regarding your posts, you know nothing about religion, plus, I've given a brief description of religion in another post.i know exactly what religion is, explain to me what it is, as you know so much about me.
Go look see.
Your religion is, that's for sure.Religion to me is a man made idea to control people with fear and carrot on stick rewards.
And you say you understand 'religion' (other than anti-godism)?Therefore" betray me and spend eternity in hell, do as i say and you will be in eternal heaven, dont worry that theres no proof of me, we will just call that faith"
Ignorance with a catchy twist at the end.It also always makes me laugh that all religious places/organisations are never poor, so not only do they get puppets on a string they get their money too
now thats easily lead
Oooh! 8)
Jan.
just decied you want to do itHow so?
Depedning on what scale we talk, life scale: Reproduction, nothing elseWhat is it?
And who is this "we"?
we as in those with greate knowledge of the world
?You're entitled to your opinion.
so just becuase someone doesnt belive ina god you are a sataist?You are deeply religious, but the central point to your religion is not God, but the complete opposite of God. (Satanism).
Thats a good aim, would make the world ALOT BETTER. but unreasonble comes from religius people, more often than atheistsThe aim of your (ir)religion is to destroy God (mentally), which is why you are so unreasonable.
becuase a 2000 year old book by man cant hold anything that is the "truth"Why?
he got a pointIt also always makes me laugh that all religious places/organisations are never poor, so not only do they get puppets on a string they get their money too
now thats easily lead
thanks zelos, thats exactly what i was going to say, hows that make me satanic? surely by not believing in god, i therefore don't belive it satan.
Thats such a common statement from religion
logical, no god, no satan. Therefor a atheist cant be a satanist.
but religius people allways says things going against their belife is a work done by satan, like creationists in USA about evolution "Its the job of the satan"
I think the arguments being presented by both 'sides' in this debate are extremely weak and badly presented.
If you don't all improve the quality I shall have to weigh in on both sides of the fence and argue with myself.
Please don't make me do this.
do what?
Zelos,
so just becuase someone doesnt belive ina god you are a sataist?
I don't think you position is on of not believing in God, I think you deny God. That is a totally different scenario.
Thats a good aim, would make the world ALOT BETTER.
Why would it?
And what is this belief based on?
...becuase a 2000 year old book by man cant hold anything that is the "truth"
Why can't it?
he got a point[/quote]It also always makes me laugh that all religious places/organisations are never poor, so not only do they get puppets on a string they get their money too
now thats easily lead
What is it?
Jan.
This isn't an argument, it is a response to a couple of questions.I think the arguments being presented by both 'sides' in this debate are extremely weak and badly presented.
If you don't all improve the quality I shall have to weigh in on both sides of the fence and argue with myself.
Please don't make me do this.
If you want an argument, I suggest you initiate one.
Jan.
You are going by the modern, designer, freindly definition of satanist and atheist which only serves to put you in a good light.logical, no god, no satan. Therefor a atheist cant be a satanist.
but religius people allways says things going against their belife is a work done by satan, like creationists in USA about evolution "Its the job of the satan"
Its all back to front man.
Jan.
The last time I looked in a dictionary I found that a response to a couple of questions that takes a partially, or wholly contrary position to the implicit position of the questioner, constituted an argument.
My remarks were not directed at your post Jan, but at everybodies posts in the entire thread. I thought all of them were poorly thought out, disconnected in character, peripheral in importance, and poorly executed. I would have thought a topic that some of you view as important would have merited greater care and attention.
Each of you may choose to ignore, dismiss, or challenge this contention, but I think you would benefit most from making your cases with more vigour, more conviction and more substance.
You are going by the modern, designer, freindly definition of satanist and atheist which only serves to put you in a good light.logical, no god, no satan. Therefor a atheist cant be a satanist.
but religius people allways says things going against their belife is a work done by satan, like creationists in USA about evolution "Its the job of the satan"
Its all back to front man.
Jan.
define satanist and athiest then :-D
August 12th, 2006, 09:04 PM
what can religion give us?
In this life it (most major deity based religions) can (if we only obey a easy rule or two) can give us peace on earth, with no one starving, millions are and millions will starve in a world brimming with cheap food, due to the selfish nature of man, and no one killing you for his next fix, or just for the fun of it. Religious truth will give you wealth and joy, as well as your brothers and sisters in blood, it will give you and the human race LIFE, not the death that we wallow in today.
when you die you will receive eternal life from accepting the simple truths that Jesus Christ gave to us.
Hey you asked.
; } >
can we get without godIn this life it (most major deity based religions) can (if we only obey a easy rule or two) can give us peace on earth, with no one starving, millions are and millions will starve in a world brimming with cheap food, due to the selfish nature of man, and no one killing you for his next fix, or just for the fun of it. Religious truth will give you wealth and joy, as well as your brothers and sisters in blood, it will give you and the human race LIFE, not the death that we wallow in today.
not possible, if it is prove itwhen you die you will receive eternal life from accepting the simple truths that Jesus Christ gave to us.
becuase with no religion there is one thing less people can use to make people do as they please. Terrorists is a exemple of religion bieng used bas, with all religion gone we wouldnt have to worry about that.Why would it?
And what is this belief based on?
becuase its 2 tousands years old, written by man, for man, as man wants it, and have been changed all the time, and proven wrong all the time, every time. so on, the list goes on why its unrelaibleWhy can't it?
religion is a way to get power for some people and money, but get poorer for those who belive in it (not allways but it happens)What is it?
We can do anything without god, but havent, and will never have opeace on earth without gods help. Proof? over FIVE thousand years of war and hate is proof to me. My religion does not required me to prove life after death, however I am required to at least tell others that there is another way, and let them choose the road to life or the road to death.can we get without god
People corrupt the word of god and use it for an excuse for all manner of bad things, and they count on the ignorance the people to believe lies as truth. This is why the harmful force is called the great deceiver in the bible.becuase with no religion there is one thing less people can use to make people do as they please. Terrorists is a exemple of religion bieng used bas, with all religion gone we wouldnt have to worry about that.
Most wars have been waged over land, but man in his lost state needs no god to fight and kill over, one excuse for pain and death are as good as another. However If we would only apply one of Christ's teachings we would have no war death or pain.
Prove or clarify the above statment, you are in gross error, I feel that whoever taught you about religious texts and or history deceived you fully.and proven wrong all the time, every time. so on, the list goes on why its unrelaible
Yes , religion can be used for evil and is used BY evil. I agree, most religious folk are being deceived today! Muslim and christian! This is why god made the bible simple , if one would study his word, one would not fall into the trap of serving the antichrist and the great deceiver.religion is a way to get power for some people and money, but get poorer for those who belive in it (not allways but it happens)
It is all there for anyone to read, god wants those of us that have half a brain to use it ,and see the truth, not mans lie.
; } >
We can, and we haveWe can do anything without god, but havent, and will never have opeace on earth without gods help. Proof? over FIVE thousand years of war and hate is proof to me.
peace? of course we can get it, we just need to get a few things out of the way, religion, starvation, plauges etc. When everybody have a good time ther will be peace
any claims requries thatMy religion does not required me to prove life after death, however I am required to at least tell others that there is another way, and let them choose the road to life or the road to death.
read about the cross-stuff (dont know waht they are called in english)?Most wars have been waged over land, but man in his lost state needs no god to fight and kill over, one excuse for pain and death are as good as another. However If we would only apply one of Christ's teachings we would have no war death or pain.
Church: Earth is flatProve or clarify the above statment, you are in gross error, I feel that whoever taught you about religious texts and or history deceived you fully.
proof: earth is round
Church: Earth is the center of the universe
proof: we arent
Church: god created all living biengs abou 6k eyars ago
Proof: we evovled and the universe is 13,6 billion years old
and so on
the bible is written by man, for man, as man wants it. + the bible we have today isnt the bible they had year 500This is why god made the bible simple , if one would study his word, one would not fall into the trap of serving the antichrist and the great deceiver.
we have so many god belifes that there is less chance one of them bieng right, than all of them bieng wrong
Or, in layman's terms, pi=3. Yes, we shall all fall before the mighty Bible.
another exemple of bible bieng wrong, so much wrong. so it cant have the ultimate thruth becuas if it did it wouldnt have wrong so many times
[quote="Ophiolite"]The problem with these particular type of atheists is that they refuse to accept anything, and seek only to destroy either God or the concept of God, which is why I choose to label them satanic/demonic. Not that I am above such labels.
If you watch a film, read a book, or listen to a story, you must accept what it is you percieve, as a reality, in order to understand the whole picture, then you are in a position to form valid opinions. But this type of acceptance doesn't mean you believe it wholeheartedly.
These people accept only what they want to accept as if they are frightened to grasp the whole picture. They are extremely narrow-minded, and
there behaviour is no better than that of a religious fanatic, in that there is no room for rational debate or discussion, either you accept there way or you are the enemy.
In real religion terms, God is the ultimate cause of everything that is percieved, not a separate entity which can be observerd. If He was, He could not be God. That is the understanding in all revealed religious faiths.
So, to discuss God, we have to approach the discussion from that point of view. These folks actively seek to sabotage such discussions from the very begining, disabeling any chance of good dialougue.
Jan.
First sentence of last paragrah:
By not being a separate entity, I mean that we cannot separate Him from His energies, material nature being one of them.
A satanist is 'ultimately' one who falls prey to the temptations of the 'great satan' namely Iblis or Lucifer who fell from the grace of God, due to pride, envy, and so on.You are going by the modern, designer, freindly definition of satanist and atheist which only serves to put you in a good light.logical, no god, no satan. Therefor a atheist cant be a satanist.
but religius people allways says things going against their belife is a work done by satan, like creationists in USA about evolution "Its the job of the satan"
Its all back to front man.
Jan.
define satanist and athiest then :-D
An atheist is an idividual who denys the authority of God for whatever reason. Iblis denied the authority of God then was granted permission to tempt the decendants of Adam into denial.
You most probably define satanism as the symbology and rituals asociated with it, but you fail to recognise its aim which is documented in the genesis book of the bible, to ultimately become equal to God Himself.
Jan.
then he have nothing to do with our reality and therefor doesnt exist for us. maybe in another universe but not this one thenIn real religion terms, God is the ultimate cause of everything that is percieved, not a separate entity which can be observerd. If He was, He could not be God. That is the understanding in all revealed religious faiths.
So, to discuss God, we have to approach the discussion from that point of view. These folks actively seek to sabotage such discussions from the very begining, disabeling any chance of good dialougue.
You're basing you're conclusion, knowingly, on incomplete, and non-contextual, knowledge.
You are denying God, His Supremity.
The question of scientific evidence for the validity of Gods existence, is nothing but a ploy, and sabotages any chance of a real discussion.
Do you have any understanding Gods trancendance as explained in the scriptures?
Jan.
[quote="jan ardena"]The problem with these particular type of atheists is that they refuse to accept anything, and seek only to destroy either God or the concept of God, which is why I choose to label them satanic/demonic. Not that I am above such labels.
If you watch a film, read a book, or listen to a story, you must accept what it is you percieve, as a reality, in order to understand the whole picture, then you are in a position to form valid opinions. But this type of acceptance doesn't mean you believe it wholeheartedly.
These people accept only what they want to accept as if they are frightened to grasp the whole picture. They are extremely narrow-minded, and
there behaviour is no better than that of a religious fanatic, in that there is no room for rational debate or discussion, either you accept there way or you are the enemy.
In real religion terms, God is the ultimate cause of everything that is percieved, not a separate entity which can be observerd. If He was, He could not be God. That is the understanding in all revealed religious faiths.
So, to discuss God, we have to approach the discussion from that point of view. These folks actively seek to sabotage such discussions from the very begining, disabeling any chance of good dialougue.
Jan.
First sentence of last paragrah:
By not being a separate entity, I mean that we cannot separate Him from His energies, material nature being one of them.
this is where you fall down, if i say i dont believe in god you see it as a direct threat, you start giving out insults(narrow mided, too frightened to grasp whole picture) then quote us as satanists. you quote it as "A satanist is 'ultimately' one who falls prey to the temptations of the 'great satan" so therefore if i dont believe in god i am being corrupted by satan?
and this is the best one QUOTE
"there behaviour is no better than that of a religious fanatic, in that there is no room for rational debate or discussion, either you accept there way or you are the enemy. "
THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR DOING, all i said was religion was a crock of s**t in my opinion, you the one thats making it irrational and throwing insults
i don't believe in god, accept it as that, you speak in absolutes, your saying if i dont believe in god i am therefore under the influence of satan
speaking in absolutes is the work the of irrational people, you could have quite easily said, "you dont believe thats ok"and kept your religion but the whole "you dont believe therefore your a satanist" is frankly a very sad way to be
Your attitude is very close to that of islamic extremists, the whole non believers are under the influence of evil
i though christians were supposed to be very forgiving and turn the other cheek
Jan's definition of Satanism, as a behaviour and a goal rather than a set of beliefs, is a valid one and is consistent with usage within some branches of Christianity. Using that definition several of you are accurately described as satanists.
Jan, the problem with your stance is that it is narrowly based on one version of God and one set of the revealed Words of God. I see no justification at all for selecting one view of God from many views of God. Nor have you presented any justification for this selection.
As shown by this thread so far; CONTROVERSYWhat can religion give us?
and that is what religion has given the world since it's begining. Controversy from one faith to another, controversy between the same sect, there are over 33000 different christian sects. Plain and simple religion has given the world nothing but controversy.
Godless
Nonsense. Making absolute statements that don't hold water does not advance your argument except with those who are singing from the same hymn sheet. (Irony intended.)
Are you so densed? Haven't you witness first hand that the discusion is nothing but fu*cking controversy!Nonsense. Making absolute statements that don't hold water
Godless, if I may so this is typical of the poor standard of debate offered in this thread.
Item 1: I was not addressing what this thread had raised in the way of controversy or cooperation. I was specifically addressing your claim that "Plain and simple, religion has given the world nothing but controversy". Challenging me on this is raising a strawman argument. I have not denied and I shall not deny that this thread has generated a great deal of controversy. That has nothing to do with what I said in my subject post.
Either you are using a cheap debating trick, or you have failed to read and understand what I have written, but have chosen instead to deliver a knee jerk reaction.
Item 2: I am inclined to supect the latter - knee jerk emotion, based upon your decline into obscenity.
Item 3:You have not presented a single piece of evidence to support your contention that "religion has given the world nothing but controversy". Indeed, you will be completely unable to do so. Your problem is, as I pointed out, making an absolute statement that can be disproved by a single exception.
Summary:Your post perfectly illustrates the poor standard of debate that seems to abound in this thread.
Haven't got the time to mess with ya!
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...roduction.html
Evidence is allready presented to you, are you still so densed? Don't you wathc the news, dont you pick up a newspaper, or hear the damn radio. Evidence of religious controversy is being presented to you in a daily basis, war, muslim jihads, christian wariors, fighting for the cause of religion, is that not evidence enough for you? Join the freaking army, go fight in Irag, so you can further be presented first hand with religious controversy!You have not presented a single piece of evidence to support your contention that "religion has given the world nothing but controversy".
Read a godamn history book will ya, it's all full of religious wars, from one sect of idealogies to another, and religious wars between same sects in origin, damn boy where the hell have you been?
Godless
jan's statemen"A satanist is 'ultimately' one who falls prey to the temptations of the 'great satan' namely Iblis or Lucifer who fell from the grace of God, due to pride, envy, and so on"
to me it seems like a set of beliefs, and is not of a behaviour , either he's saying he does or doesn't exist.
The point i'm trying to make is if you say you disbelieve there is a god you are told you doing it to be confrontational or a satanist. this is the reason for war. rather than accepting someone elses beliefs or lack of them you just get attacked and insulted
My true belief in the reason for the insults is that either the religion or a particular persons faith is so weak that they cant take someone elses opinion
I’ve always thought of myself as a Christian however I suppose thinking about it I’m more of an agnostic. I doubt the existence of God a great deal, which is natural considering atheists make up the majority of people in my local community.
However I still believe religion is useful. I think that it brings stability provided the people that follow religious dogma have consensus on its true meaning (a near impossibility I agree).
As someone has already mentioned the Bible is kind of a mess. It’s a story that’s gone from being passed by word of mouth to being written down and added to time and time again. Because of this reason I don’t belong to any church or denomination. I think that the Bible has to be taken for what it is and looked at objectively. I believe that there are truths still contained within it even after being hidden by years of half-truths and errors.
Someone also mentioned that religion diminishes the importance of life. I happen to agree with this after experiencing it first hand. As I have mentioned I’m sort of an agnostic so I can see both points of view to a certain degree. Those times when I’m more on the religious side of the fence I feel as if life isn’t all that important and that death really isn’t all that much of a big deal. On the plus side I don’t worry about death but adversely I feel somewhat guilty at my apparent lack of empathy for those who I see suffering in the news.
You’re not going to get a conclusive response from me on this matter since even as I type my mind is thinking of arguments for the usefulness of religion while at the same time producing counter arguments.
Godless, I am not so densed, I am not even so dense.
For what I hope will be the last time Godless, please read and understand what I am objecting to.
Here is your statement:
"Plain and simple, religion has given the world nothing but controversy".
This is an absolute statement. Do you understand what an absolute statement is? Your responses to date clearly indicate you do not.
You have stated that religion has given the world nothing but controversy. The only thing religion has given the world is controversy. Thre is no other thing that religion has given to the world - ever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. If we remove controversy, according to you, religion has given nothing to the world.
That is a clear and absolute statement.
It is the absolutism of that sentence that I have been ridiculing for the last several posts, yet you stubbornly refuse to see this.
Absolute statements made in the context of a discussion like this are suicidal, since only one exception is required to disprove them. You can supply twelve million examples of religion causing controversy and I need provide only a single example of it providing something else and your argument is wholly voided, because you have used an absolute.
Do you get the point yet Godless? I am critiquing your weak debating skills. I am trying to encourage you to do better. You merely respond with more irrelevancies. That's fine. Now you are on your own. Expect to be taken apart each time you post similar nonsense.
and an answer to mine?
Is it all a matter of interpretation. Of course it was not meant as an absolute statement. That's however how you perceived to interpret it.
The responsibility for clear communication rests primarily with the writer.
You might wish to consider how your readers were meant to know that a linguistically absolute statement was not intended as an absolute statement. Don't try shifting the blame onto the reader.
My perception was based upon what you had written. I am not gifted with ESP. I suspected you were using hyperbole - since it is one of your hallmarks - but hyperbole in a precise discussion on a science forum is open to misinterpretation. I advise against using it unless the intent is made very clear.
Most of people know, there's no such thing as an ABSOLUTE, there's no absolute proof of anything, a statement made is taken by it's merit of what it is trying to imply. Religion has been a major source of controversy around the globe since its impsetion, everyone knows this, even the followers of such religions, however there's no evidence that religion is an absolute truth, or that it's absolutely controversial. That is just common sense, something of which you apparently lack!You might wish to consider how your readers were meant to know that a linguistically absolute statement was not intended as an absolute statement.
Godless
Godless, will you stop with the strawman arguments for the love of whatever dark recess you pray to when you suddenly realise the reserve 'chute won't open either.
Where did I suggest, hint, imply, or propose that religion is an absolute truth? Nowhere. And that is an absolute fact. That is language used to express precisely what I mean.
You persistently go off at these irrelevant tangents, grasping straws that exist on some invisible plane. Please desist.
How many versions of God are there?
Please state.
Jan.
Do you think that these 33000 christian sects recognise Jesus as their saviour, and to some extent, try to follow in what they believe are his footsteps?
If so then they all come under the banner of one religion christianity of which the bible is a revealed scripture.
This kind of propoganda from you only serves to reveal you lack of understanding of what religion is.
There are two main religions right now christianity and Islam, not thousands. Both these religious scriptures confer with each other, and every western or middle-eastern faith is based on these books.
Jan.
I wish I could agree, Zelos, I truly do, however from what I have seen and from what I have learned, the more people get the more they want.When everybody have a good time their will be peace
Its primitive human psychology to be greedy. Its a pathology (of fear) to deprive others of basic humanitarian rights for our wants, which are far different than needs!
Its gods nature to give. And gods way is the only way for a greedy selfish race to have a nice long life as a species.
We must mature enough for our animal instincts to mellow out in order to blend with the current level of technology. As it is now we are still a primitive brained animal with nukes instead of spears, and yeah god help us because we need you.
: { >
If you truly believe that humans are purely selfish without any natural inclination to give to others, then quite frankly, I have to wonder about you as a person. People see in others what they see in themselves.
That isn't to say that people will willingly do things for others all the time with no personal benefit involved. But just because you are helping yourself doesn't mean you aren't helping others in the process.
It is when people learn to feel genuine empathy, to truly be able to experience the joy they are giving to another, that they can become as close to selfless and giving as humans can get. Yes, we will always seek personal gain, but that shouldn't interfere with being morally righteous if you are fully aware of others and their emotions.
Also, the fact that some people are entirely in it for themselves doesn't mean the rest of us have a right to. The idea that all people naturally seek personal gain exclusively just sounds like an excuse to me.
What ruins religion are the lower-IQ echelon who think you have to follow religion as a life goal, or else be shunned to hell. I am a christian, yet I am barely able to hold a conversation, let alone be around with one for more than 10 minutes. I started talking about something, and the conversation ended on how Jesus created the world. :?
hope and vision, for things unseen and things on the possible horizon of events. In addition, ways of opening up ones hearts and minds to be part of a group, where helping others is a much easier task. People cannot deny that religion has had great effects on some people; perhaps this was the only way for these people to achieve that state or mind or consciousness.
In the next few decades, America is going to give us a very detailed picture of what happens to a society without religious conviction. You can already see it happening... increased teen pregnancies, increased drug use, increased divorce rates, etc. Without a sense of moral guidance, people tend to move toward what is easy and convenient. That spells disaster for any society.
Welcome to the postmodern age.
You need to get out more. If you want a picture of a society without religious conviction, this country is hardly a good example. People in many european countries look at our country and it seems dominated by radical religion to them.
According to http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html the United states is not in the top 40 most atheistic countries. The Scandanavian countries seem to be the front runners in that regard with Sweden topping the chart. Although Japan might also be considered a prime example also (at least as far as a lack in the belief in a God is concerned, for I don't know how Shinto figures into this).
There's about as much credibility for that as there would be for blaming it onto de-forestation in Brazil. It's what we call 'Medieval logic'
Trend 'a' occurs, trend 'b' occurs therefore no trend a = no trend b
Like car 'A' drove down the street, Then car 'B' crashed, therefore if car 'A' had not driven down the street car 'B' would not have crashed.
The two events may be linked BUT they may not.
If you are religious and your deity is bloody perfect why did he cock up on good beahaviour?
Mitchell, please check your facts before saying things like "You need to get out more." The link you gave us puts Sweden as the most agnostic/atheistic/nonbelieving nation in the world coming in at 46-85%. Let's cross-reference that with the three indicators I gave in my last post:
Increased teen pregnancy
Increased drug use
Increased divorce rates
By the way, in my last post I said, "In the next few decades, America is going to give us a very detailed picture of...," and not "America is a prime example of..." But thank you for helping me prove my point.
From what I understand, billco, you're saying that they might be unrelated. What other factors might you attribute these stats to?
You cannot automatically tie these together. (atheism & crime)
Did you know,
FACT: Catholic priests have the highest rate of convictions for sexual mis-conduct per head than ANY OTHER PROFESSION!
Compare that with the Scientific Engineering Community who are mostly Agnostic/Athiest.
From this I could easily hypothesis that Religion is the cause of all sexual crimes. Clearly that would be absurd. Show me a study that OBJECTIVELY compares crime rates between believers and non-believers across a wide range of societies, beliefs, and crucially age.
In the US I believe that more crime is committed by the non-white community yet this community has the HIGHEST attendance at church.
This suggests to me that either higher crime rate is directly due to relgion
(using your 'logic')
or, is little or nothing to do with religion using my logic?
You choose, Your logic or mine?
Try the following link;
http://biblia.com/christianity/clergy.htm
billco, you're making Hume's old argument about causation. He noted that although we do perceive the one event following the other, we do not perceive any necessary connection between the two. Using that logic, you could throw a rock at a window and see the window break. Though by all means of common sense we know that the rock broke the window, Hume would argue that we can't know for sure, and he's right.
Part of what it means to be human is the ability to draw conclusions. Without that ability, science could never make any progress. If we applied Hume's argument to science, it destroys the possibility for induction and decution. We look at the facts, we notice patterns, we draw conclusions. I'm asking you to look at the facts and draw the natural conclusions.
Since a larger amount of baseline data means more accurate results, I'd be willing to compare the top ten countries on mitchellmckain's non-believers list to a list of the countries with the ten highest church attendances. Let's use the same indicators I've been using, plus any others you'd want to add. If it shows there is no correlation, I'll concede. But please choose now whether or not you'd accept this as valid.
You have chosen not to answer my question but throw it aside and pose a question of you own. If you answer my question I will answer yours.
Hunches don't make really good data for statistics, but I think if you were to conduct a study you'd find that yes there is a weak correlation. The reason it would be weak is because we're talking about two groups who are both religious, just one a little bit more than the other. There's not enough of a contrast to overcome social factors like decades of oppression.
Instead I suggested a study using the two extremes, countries of believers and non-believers. That's about as sharp a contrast as we're going to find. I also suggested we look at 10 countries from each side to produce more baseline data. So again, my question to you is "Would you accept this as valid?"
It is quite clear you do not intesnd to answer my question.
For the sake of clarity, would you repeat your question for Lucid. I find that often the unanswered question, while obvious to the questioner, is not so obvious to the reader, as it seems buried in a host of other debating points and queries.
Oh come now, billco. Let's not get lazy here.
This is how the conversation has progressed so far (correct me if I'm wrong):
Lucid - Countries without religious conviction have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy, drug use, and divorce.
billco - There's no way to prove that they are related.
Lucid - We can't prove it, but we can note when there is a correlation.
billco - According to that logic, we can also say religion causes crime because the non-white community attends church most often but also has the highest crime rates.
Lucid - It's true that there is a correlation, but it's a weak one for the following reasons... Let's conduct a study in which the correlation is likely to be strong.
billco - You didn't answer my question.
I think the specific question you wanted answered was "You choose, Your logic or mine?" And my answer is 'my logic.' To that you'd probably say, "But look at the non-whites in America." And in response I'll ask you to reread the following paragraphs:
Thanks for helping, Ophiolite. billco, if this doesn't answer your question then please rephrase it.
I propose that we change the subject from 'what can religion gives us' to 'what can christianism give us' because some religions may be very different from christianism. For example, Buddhism does not base its belief in God the creator, but the true nature of things and how to cope with them.
From what I have read so far, the members of this forum do not seem to know much about buddhism to make a reasonable assessment. So we'd better leave it out.
We also should leave out the discussion on whether God is real or not, because it is not the objective.
On 'what can christianism give us?'. I believe it gives us both good and bad things. It gives us sister Theresa and other noble people and orgnizations for good cause around the world. It also gives as crusade war, even though one of the commandments says 'thou shall not kill'.
Prasit
The abortion rate in Sweden (in 1996), one of the nations with the leading population of agnostics and atheists was 18.7% compared to that of Australia (22.2%) and the United States (21.3%). If we are to correlate this to religious adherence, then clearly the United States, where 81% of the population considered itself "religious" in 2001 (ARIS 2001), and Australia, where 74% of the population is religious (NCLS 2001), are both nations that should have lower percentages of abortion.
They don't. Moreover, the statistics cited for Swedish abortions in teens in a previous post are a bit misleading. The teen pregnancy rate in Sweden is among the lowest in the world to begin with. There's also the problem with failing to consider other mitigating factors, such as concurrent population growth, which was about 6% from 1996 to 2005 (BFS 2005). Looking at global abortion/pregnancy rates is also revealing.
In the U.S., in 1991, teen pregnancies per 1,000 were 98.0 and total teen abortions, also per 1,000, were 44.4 (Wolf et al 1991). The same year for Sweden yielded 28.3 per 1,000 pregnancies and 19.6 per 1,000 abortions.
Swedish abortions, with 50% increase among teens (National Board of Health and Welfare 2004) would put the rate at about 29.5 per 1,000, just over the U.S. rate of 28% (Ventura et al 2004). Recent data indicate a downward turn in teenage abortions in Sweden, however, with 24.3 per 1,000 in 2005 (National Board of Health and Welfare 2006). Of significant interest is the birth rate among teenagers in the U.S., which is the highest in the developed world, seven times as high as Japan's (UN 2005).
Japan is an interesting comparator, since reports of Japanese religiosity rate them at 64-65% atheist/agnostic (Zuckerman 2005). However, it consistently reports the lowest rates of abortion and pregnancies among teens: 6.3 and 10.2 per 1,000 respectively.
Whenever attempting to find correlations between "moral" behavior and religion, or lack of either, the same thing consistently becomes clear: those nations that are among the most superstitious experience the highest rates of amoral behavior.
Does religion cause bad behavior? That's certainly debatable, but there certainly is *no* evidence to suggest that the United States is in any danger of becoming less religious -it has, indeed, become increasingly backward in its superstitious nature- nor is there evidence that lack of religion, should it occur in America, would be deleterious.
As to the OP question: the answer is clearly art. Little else given to us by religion is of use. Morality and human values can exist without religion. Laws and order can be maintained in absence of superstitious adherence to cult doctrine.
References
ARIS (2001). American Religious Identification Survey. The Graduate Center for the City University of New York
BFS (2005). Struktur der Bevölkerung. Ständige Wohnbevölkerung [Periode 1970-2005]. Bundesamt für Statistik BFS.
National Board of Health and Welfare (2004). Abortions 2003. Sweden: Centre for Epidemiology, Official Statistics of Sweden.
National Board of Health and Welfare (2006). Abortions 2005.[PDF] Sweden: Centre for Epidemiology, Official Statistics of Sweden.
United Nations. (2005). Demographic Yearbook, 2002. New York, NY: United Nations.
Ventura, Stephanie J., et al. (2004, June 15). "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States, 1990-2000: An Update." National vital Statistics Report, 52(23).
Wolff, Michael; et al (1992). Where We Stand. New York: Bantam Books.
Zuckerman, Phil (2005). "Atheism: contemporary rates and patterns," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Michael Martin, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edit: corrected "Swiss" to read "Swedish." Obviously I should read over what I type at least once.
Wow wouldn't it be nice if we just all told the truth and wouldn't have to waste half a post on references.
SkinWalker, it appears you've done your homework. The majority of your post was comparing the United States to Sweden (assuming that by the 'Swiss' you meant the people from Sweden). I agree that Sweden should be placed at one end of the religious spectrum, but I think the United States is misplaced on the other end. The statistic that 81% of Americans consider themselves "religious" is misleading because according to the World Values Survey (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/re...attendance/AFR), only 44% of American adults actually attend church, and that doesn't take into consideration the more secular younger cohort. Moreover, it would be easy to subjectively choose one country from each side to illustrate the point you're trying to make. A larger, more objective set of baseline data is in order.
According to the aforementioned, the 11 countries with the highest church attendance in descending order are: Nigeria, Ireland, Phillipines, South Africa, Poland, Puerto Rico, Portugal, Slovakia, Mexico, Italy and the United States. I'll include the United States as number 11 because I don't want my point to be lost on the people who don't think the United States should be excluded. Let's compare this to a survey of the 11 most atheistic/agnostic/nonbeliving countries in descending order (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html): Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea, Germany, and Russia. For the sake of ease, I'll call the two groups religous and non-religous.
Drug offenses - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-drug-offences
If we look at the top fifteen countries in terms of drug offenses per capita, the non-religious countries fill 5 of those spots. Of the religious countries, only the United States is among the top fifteen. Furthermore, Norway (the fourth most non-religious country) almost doubles the United States' drug offenses per capita.
Divorces - http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml
Of the non-religious countries, 8 of them are among the twenty-four highest divorce rates in the world. Again, the United States is the only religious country out of the 11 to be represented.
Total Crimes - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita
The eighteen countries with the highest amount of total crime per capita includes 6 of the non-religious countries and only 2 of the religious countries, the United States and South Africa.
Abortions - http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...-capita&nofb=1
Of the sixteen countries with the highest number of abortions per capita, 7 of the non-religious countries appear on the list compared to only 2 of the religious countries, the United States and Italy.
Rape Victims - http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...victims&nofb=1
A look at the ten countries with the most rape victims per capita includes 3 of the non-religious countries and none of the religious countries, not even the United States.
When we look at the world in terms of religious and non-religious countries, a pattern seems to present itself. The non-religious countries are consistently high on the lists of bad behavior. And, with the exception of the United States, the religious countries are notoriously absent. Sure, we can find examples in the United States where the religious leaders behave badly, and maybe Japan has lower than average abortion rates. But on the grander scale - the only scale worth taking statistics from - it appears that we have an answer to the question "What can religion give us?" I would agree that it doesn't give us morality, but it gives us moral conviction.
Even after your post, I don't think it became consistently clear. You gave two or three examples to illustrate your point, but that's hardly enough to claim a consistency. After my post, I think it's pretty clear that that's not the case.
Again, that's a little much to assume. But I also think it's also too much to assume that atheism causes bad behavior. At the very least, atheism creates a society conducive to bad behavior... and it shows.
Yes, I did *not* mean "Swiss" but "Swedish." Thank you. I must learn to read over what I've written at least once.
But with regard to your assertion that religious adherence in the United States is low (44% "church attendance"), I would have to disagree completely that the way to gauge religiosity is by examining "church attendance." Whether or not an adherent joins with like-minded at a cult-gathering, that adherent can still have a very fundamental perspective of his religion. Many reasons exist for why an adherent doesn't attend church: unable; uncomfortable; believes self to already be on "correct path;" etc.; etc.
The practice of examining immorality or alleged immorality (abortion is debatable; as is divorce -both are legal to varied degrees in each of the nations listed) compared with that nation's church attendance is a fool's errand. Not considered are other mitigating factors: how good is that nation at catching criminals? Are supposed "religious" nations bad at this? Nations overly encumbered by superstitious influences and nations that have state religions will naturally report lower divorce and abortion rates.
A better metric would be to examine these nations' prison populations. Take a census of religious vs. non-religious. Or measure recidivism rates between religious and non-religious nations. One could even look at crimes committed by the religious in one of the most religious nations on the planet: the United States.
But, since the alleged immoral act of divorce is brought up, let's look at it in the U.S.:
U.S. Divorce Rates by religion
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Finally, to demonstrate that presenting crime stats as an argument in the religious vs non-religious argument is pure bollocks, I offer the recidivism rates of one of the most religious nations vs. one of the most non-religious.
In the U.S., recidivism for drug related offenses was at 67% in 1994.
In Norway, that rate for the same type offense was 54% in 1996. I didn't have data for the same years, but the point being made is still valid: religion doesn't seem to make any difference in stopping or preventing crime or keeping people from committing the same crimes.
At best, your attempts to draw correlations between church attendance and "immorality" is spurious.
So, if religion doesn't offer morality, as it so apparently fails at, the only thing remaining of value is art (poetry, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, etc.) and some social cohesion here and there. Without committing myself to a study, I submit that there are instances in which religion is very good at organizing socially on a small scale and providing charity and relief. I'm suspect of religion or any other non-governmental organization (NGO) that organizes socially or charitably on a large scale.
not really. religion have that effectAgain, that's a little much to assume. But I also think it's also too much to assume that atheism causes bad behavior. At the very least, atheism creates a society conducive to bad behavior... and it shows.
I like how you based your last post almost entirely on American statistics, even though I just showed that the United States is clearly the outlier among religious countries when it comes to social issues.
By all means, offer an alternative...
I hope you realize that by offering this logic, you're not just arguing against me but against the whole institution of statistical analysis. You could always nit-pick and say there could be other factors, but when it comes down to it the stats need to speak for themselves. If I had to choose between you or statistical analysis, I'm going to go with statistical analysis every time.
Having an abortion usually means either a) the woman was raped (immoral), or b) the woman wasn't careful enough (bad decision-making). Both of these scenarios are bad. As for divorce, higher rates usually mean unhealthier relationships. I understand it could also mean that religious people are more likely to stay in an unhealthy relationship, so I'd be willing to concede that point if only so you'll see that the other stats remain overwhelmingly in favor of societies who have high church attendance.
To answer that, I'm going to defer to a previous post:Sometime when your pride isn't on the line, please reread (or read) the statistics on my last post. With the exception of the US (which, again, is an outlier among religious nations), the religious nations are markedly absent from the lists of social problems. The non-religious nations aren't; in fact considering there were only 11 of them being surveyed, the consistency with which they appear is astounding.
If you did an internet search, you might have noticed I'm not the only one making this argument. I'm making the case that religion gives us moral conviction, but The Washington Post also published an article connecting church attendance to longer life (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...4514-3168r.htm). "A 12-year study tracking mortality rates of more than 550 subjects older than 65 found that those who attended services at least once a week were 35 percent more likely to live longer than those who never attended church."
Atheist Matthew Alper makes the case that religion was developed through evolution in his book "The God Part of the Brain." An essential part of his theory is the fact that religion is beneficial enough for evolution to select for! Alper recognizes that virtually every society in the world has developed some sort of belief in the supernatural because of the confidence with which people can approach death.
If you're still wondering what religion has given us, Duke University, Indiana University, The University of Michigan, The Center for Disease Control, Barna Research Group, and the National Institute for Healthcare Research have all conducted studies. They've found links between active church participation and...
- increased average life expectancy by 8 years
- significantly reduced use and risk from alcohol, tobacco and drugs
- dramatically lowered risk of suicide
- 70% faster recovery from depression
- dramatically reduced risk for committing a crime
- improved attitude at school and increased school participation
- improved odds for a "very happy" life
- more frequent use of seatbelts
All studies and references above can be found at http://www.sundaysoftware.com/stats.htm .
I relied on heavily on U.S. data because the U.S. is mostly religious. And the United States happens to be one of the few mostly religious nations that isn't a theocracy or where religious freedom isn't restricted.like how you based your last post almost entirely on American statistics, even though I just showed that the United States is clearly the outlier among religious countries when it comes to social issues.
First, statistical analysis isn't an "institution," its a method. Second, by offering the logic I did -to consider all factors in the research question- I'm very much adhering to the principles of statistical analysis. Limiting oneself such as you have in looking for the correlation between religiosity and immorality is poor methodology. Moreover, the very use of tertiary sources for statistical data is also poor methodology. One can only assume that "Nationmaster" uses data acquired by sources like the United Nations, but without actually going into the UN data sets and verifying or tallying, we're relying on a tertiary interpretation. If you download the UN source listed in your first link under "Drug offenses," then search for "Norway" or "offenses," you'll not find the figure mentioned on the Nationmaster site. That doesn't mean that Nationmaster is wrong, it simply means that we haven't the ability to examine the source of the data to look at context and syntax. Both of which are important when trying to make the type of correlation you are.I hope you realize that by offering this logic, you're not just arguing against me but against the whole institution of statistical analysis.
So forgive me. But when it comes to the spurious citations and correlations you provide or real statistical analysis, I'll choose the latter.
Regardless of your superstitious bias against abortion and divorce, both of these acts remain legal. They are not immoral by the standards of free nations. If your superstitious beliefs hold that they are, then more power to you. They're both irrelevant to the discussion, thus discarded. Drug offenses are clearly highest in the most religious nation in the world: the United States. That UN source I mentioned above has some very interesting statistics that show completely the opposite of what you're saying. The number of seizures of illicit drugs was pathetically low compared to the amount in the U.S. Dismiss the U.S. as an "out lier" all you want, it is a very religious nation and is a world leader in nearly every other regard, including the amount of immorality and depravity that exists.Having an abortion usually means either a) the woman was raped (immoral), or b) the woman wasn't careful enough (bad decision-making). Both of these scenarios are bad. As for divorce, higher rates usually mean unhealthier relationships. I understand it could also mean that religious people are more likely to stay in an unhealthy relationship, so I'd be willing to concede that point if only so you'll see that the other stats remain overwhelmingly in favor of societies who have high church attendance.
Your methodology of rating religiosity as a direct correlate of church attendance is flawed, people who don't attend "church" can still be religious and are. But one of the most significant flaws in this methodology is that it effectively ignores faiths and religions that don't require or even support church attendance. We, therefore, can discard this and start fresh. By looking at the Pew Global Attitudes Project results 2002, we see that the United States is, indeed, an "out lier" as you say. The U.S. is considered to be among the wealthiest nations of the world, also known as the industrialized world or "core" nations, and 59% of U.S. citizens rated religion as "very important." If we're looking for a trends of immorality correlated with religious nations, clearly the most religious have the most "immorality."
It was just a few hundred years ago that homicide rates in Christian Europe and the American colonies were astronomical (Beeghley 2003; Lane 1997). I'm too lazy to look up the exact figures, but I can't imagine anyone would argue the point. But among the secular west, only the United States continues to have a high homicide rate (Beeghley 2003; Doyle 2000). Yes, the United States is an "out lier." It's a religious nation -the only among the industrialized nations- with a high homicide and overall crime rate. Nations like Columbia and Portugal also have high crime rates (Pew 2002). They're also religious nations. Many very religious nations in Africa are high in human rights violations. They're also very religious. South Africa consumes more cocaine than any other country in Africa (UN 2001); it's also the fifth most religious, under Senegal, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali -four nations were human rights violations are a norm (HRW 2006).
Finally:
Not that I could tell. All I noticed at this site was a the text you so handily copy/pasted and a general link to www.barna.com. Tertiary sources are good because someone else goes through the trouble of sifting data sets and showing the results. But this is a good thing when they properly cite the primary source of information. Any chance you have a direct link or citation to the actual data so that methodology can be evaluated? If it turns out to be a survey where attendees were asked as they were leaving church to fill out a survey, then perhaps you can see how the data has a questionable confirmation bias? If however, the data are gathered using more impartial means, this is a different story.All studies and references above can be found at http://www.sundaysoftware.com/stats.htm .
References:
Beeghley, Leonard (2003). Homicide: A Sociological Explanation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Doyle, Rodger (2000) The Roots of Homicide. Scientific American 283 (3), p. 22.
HRW (2006). Info by Country: Africa. Human Rights Watch [accessed 9/3/06]
Lane, Roger (1997). Murder in America: A History. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Pew (2002). Among the Wealthy Nations... U.S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Relgion. Pew Global Attitudes Project [accessed 9/3/06]
UN (2001). The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000) [PDF]. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
September 4th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Religion provides a detractor from the truth - The best way to get people to fight to the death for you is to convince them that if they do they will go to a better life. In a way it adds more weight to Dawinism!
Here's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying: your stats come from 1 or 2 countries subjectively chosen by you; my stats come from 22 countries objectively chosen by surveys.
You challenged that church attendance should be used choose religious countries, yet failed to offer a "fair" alternative.
You challenged that abortion and divorce should be used as indicators, which I'll accept only for the sake of the argument, yet you have nothing to say about drug offenses, rape victims, and total crime.
You repeatedly offer the United States as an example (which nobody has been defending by the way), yet you have nothing to say about the other 10 countries that were higher on the list.
By all means, conduct your own survey. But please stop trying to prove your point by individual examples; it's getting tiresome. The reason that I'm so confident in my findings is that all the surveys I've found on the internet have also come to the same conclusion.
Yeah actually. Click on the same link and scroll down. It's all there.
http://www.sundaysoftware.com/stats.htm
Still not convinced?
- "Regular church attendance during adolescence frequently predicts a less promiscuous adult life. 'Never married women who did not attend religious services as adolescents are more than twice as likely to report having two or more recent sex partners compared to those who did attend services regularly.'" Survey taken of 3,378 single women.
- Benefits of church attendance in poor communities: "The study, commissioned by the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, relied on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to examine the relationship between religion and academics in nearly 10,000 students. Regnerus and Elder found that the poorer the neighborhood, the more church attendance helped kids to improve academically. The findings held true even after controlling for obvious influences like a student's relationship with parents."
- A study consisting of 949 males and 3117 females: "Among female students a higher percent (p <.05) who were Not Religious consumed over 14 drinks per week (55.5 vs 36.2%), tobacco (43.3 vs 29.3%), marijuana (32.4 vs 15. 1 %), amphetamines (8.4 vs 4. 1 %), LSD (7.4 vs 2.9%), and Ecstasy (4.8 vs 2. 1 %) compared to those who were Very Religious."
No. I'm not convinced. In fact, the link provided by this website to Barna no longer exists. I looked for the data and methodology at Barna but couldn't find it. Some of the other data sources listed there are interesting and I'll take a look at them when time permits then comment on them.
One thing about the sunday software link that I found interesting was this quote: "Barna’s research discovered that a person’s lifelong behaviors and views are generally developed when they are young – particularly before they reach the teenage years. [...] a majority of Americans make a lasting determination about the personal significance of Christ’s death and resurrection by age 12."
This is consistent with other addictions (I assert that religion is an addiction for most) that find their addicts at early age. More than 80% of the people who smoke cigarettes began to smoke before the age of 18. About 5% started smoking at age 8, and another 20% started before age 13 (Ammerman and Neinstein 2002).
Also, you obviously failed to carefully scrutinize the sources and information I provided. I did not subjectively choose 1 or 2 countries but drew a few examples from a 44 nation survey. Also, I did discuss drug offenses and crime in general as well as violent crimes like homicide. I considered looking at rape, specifically, but chose to avoid it because rape statistics become very subjective when looking at the issue globally because of cultural norms and expectations in other nations, particularly some of the under-developed nations.
Your data are weak. Your interpretations unfounded.
The United States is the most religious of industrialized nations -wealthy, western nations. It has the highest crime. Consistently we see that high crime and human rights violations are highest among the religious nations of the world. And, other than the U.S., these are the largely underdeveloped nations with a few exceptions like South Africa.
Reference
Ammerman SD, Neinstein LS (2002). Tobacco. In LS Neinstein, ed. Adolescent Health Care: A Practical Guide. 4th ed. pp. 1290-1313. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Maybe you missed the heading on the website that says
"Sources and Additional Research
(and some of it quite amazing)
Information gleaned from the Barna Research Group, http://www.barna.org/"
Even if you couldn't find the stats yourself, that doesn't mean they don't exist. They give the statistics right on the page, and many of them offer links to places other than www.barna.org.
How is that not the same thing?
Fortunately, the statistics' validity isn't contingent on whether or not you're convinced. As far as I'm concerned, the numbers speak for themselves.
Indeed they do. A look at the Pew survey of 44 nations compared with the UN data that was the source for Nationmaster site you linked is quite revealing: it shows that religious nations are the most violent. Comparing these nations with data gleaned by Human Rights Watch (linked in my previous post) reveals human rights violations more prevalent in religious nations than non-religious nations.
I agree with you. The numbers speak for themselves.
| « God as a scientific hypothesis | God spelled backwards... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
