Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[SlowSpyder]

I think my ultimate point is that secularism hasn't brought any more peace to the earth than when religion was running stuff. People simply went from being afraid to question religion, to being afraid to use the internet because of cyber thieves, or they moved to carry guns due armed robbers.

It's also been proven that you don't need a religious reason to kill, or murder anymore. Most wars are simply power struggles and for control. No religion needed.

Rob, you're changing the goal posts. Here is what you said:

That isn't what I was implying. A secular age hasn't corrected the problems of war and violence. In fact, since after WW1, it's gotten worse.

The link I shared would imply the opposite. When religion was in charge, a larger percentage of people died in wars and genocide. When prayer was our best medicine people lived much shorter lives than we do today with science. Now we are coming to our senses and moving away from god, and things have indeed gotten better, not worse.

I think people see today's problems and think how awful things are but don't really think about what life was like in, say, the year 1300 when the church had tremendous power.

 

[crashtestdummy]

This due to the fact that people started carrying guns, carrying plastic instead of cash, and doing on-line shopping, so idiots aren't willing to risk getting shot. It has nothing do with people being unwilling to rob -- it's just not as easy to strong-arm people as before.

Sure, but I wasn't arguing science but secularism.



Not disagreeing with you, but I'd also state that it depends on what country you live in.

I think you're missing the breadth of where violence has fallen and for how long. This isn't something that has just occurred in the United States over the last 20 years. There has been a precipitous drop in crime in the US, but the violent death trend is worldwide and has been steadily going for the last 5000 years. That includes the last few hundred, during which societies have become much more secularized. While it is much more difficult to establish a causal relationship between the two, at the very least worldwide secularization hasn't led to a precipitous rise in worldwide violence. The decline of violence has simply continued unabated.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, you're changing the goal posts. Here is what you said:



The link I shared would imply the opposite. When religion was in charge, a larger percentage of people died in wars and genocide. When prayer was our best medicine people lived much shorter lives than we do today with science. Now we are coming to our senses and moving away from god, and things have indeed gotten better, not worse.

I think people see today's problems and think how awful things are but don't really think about what life was like in, say, the year 1300 when the church had tremendous power.

my bad...not trying to move goalposts. Trying to respond when I have a few minutes, so I won't be able to completely respond.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you're missing the breadth of where violence has fallen and for how long. This isn't something that has just occurred in the United States over the last 20 years. There has been a precipitous drop in crime in the US, but the violent death trend is worldwide and has been steadily going for the last 5000 years. That includes the last few hundred, during which societies have become much more secularized. While it is much more difficult to establish a causal relationship between the two, at the very least worldwide secularization hasn't led to a precipitous rise in worldwide violence. The decline of violence has simply continued unabated.

Well, I'd say that if what you say is true, violence has decreased even during heavy religious adherence.

I can rightfully then conclude that we would have this decease naturally, regardless of religion, so there would be no need for secularism to decrease violence, right?

 

[SlowSpyder]

my bad...not trying to move goalposts. Trying to respond when I have a few minutes, so I won't be able to completely respond.

No problem, mang.

But I think the main point I'm trying to make is that things have not gotten worse as religion has moved more and more into the backseat. If anything, on the whole things have improved. That may or may not have relation to religion, but my point is that it would seem when people prayed more and believed more, god wasn't helping much... like he wasn't there or something. :whiste:

Hypothetically, if you get a staph infection, do you just pray to god about it, or turn to scientifically derived medicines? If god heals you, you have even stronger faith than before and will continue doing his work as best you can on earth. If he doesn't heal you, you get to go to eternal paradise. Why take the medicine if god is in charge and was helping people in the past when things 'weren't worse'?

 

[jackstar7]

That can also apply to those who are not religious....

your opinion and obviously not true at all....people can elect to vote no...threy have a voice regardless if they are religious or not....

Can someone parse this into something I can glean the meaning from?

Is it really at the point where the Constitution doesn't matter? Because I thought a lot of this was resting on the first amendment...

 

[crashtestdummy]

Well, I'd say that if what you say is true, violence has decreased even during heavy religious adherence.

I can rightfully then conclude that we would have this decease naturally, regardless of religion, so there would be no need for secularism to decrease violence, right?

I'd say that neither religiosity nor secularism are causally related to violence (i.e. one does not lead to the other). In both cases, they simply provide excuses to allow bad people to do bad things (and good people to do good things).

Far more interesting to me (Pinker tries to establish this but doesn't really move beyond speculation) is that the two topics might have a common cause in the spread of information and globalization. In other words, the free flow of information has a way of both reducing violence and also making state-sponsored religion less attractive.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd say that neither religiosity nor secularism are causally related to violence (i.e. one does not lead to the other). In both cases, they simply provide excuses to allow bad people to do bad things (and good people to do good things)

I can agree, but then it begs the question as to why atheists attempt to draw a direct causation between secularism and less violence? There are plenty of peaceful people in religion and atheism/secularism.

Far more interesting to me (Pinker tries to establish this but doesn't really move beyond speculation) is that the two topics might have a common cause in the spread of information and globalization. In other words, the free flow of information has a way of both reducing violence and also making state-sponsored religion less attractive.

Steven Pinker, I presume?

I do agree that state sponsored religion is completely unattractive. I also agree that information does decrease it, and also folks are willing to kill people who try to rob and invade homes nowadays. Robbers really want no resistance.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I find it almost comical and laughable that Atheists in general honestly believe that there would be less violence or no violence if the world as a whole was null and void of religion....

I remember reading something that goes like this --
Overly religious people who think that everyone else in the world is wrong who doesn't believe like them will not have peace. Similarly, atheists who are determined to convince everyone that there is not a God will not be peaceful either. Peace comes from personal security in one's beliefs.

Everyone has beliefs whether they admit it or not!

 

[crashtestdummy]

I can agree, but then it begs the question as to why atheists attempt to draw a direct causation between secularism and less violence? There are plenty of peaceful people in religion and atheism/secularism.

Correlation and anecdote. Secularization and a decrease in violence are both steady trends that have existed for the last 500 years, and so it is easy to point at the two and say one caused the other. Anecdotally, many atheists will look at witch hunts, inquisitions, and crusades and say "see, this is what religion brings you" much the same way that many religious folk will look at Stalin's purges and say "see, this is what atheism brings you." I think both assessments are very narrow-minded.

To me, enforcing a strictly secular government is about religious freedom. Only when we define our laws in a completely non-religious context do we give everyone the most possible freedom to practice (or not practice) their own choice of religion.

Steven Pinker, I presume?

I do agree that state sponsored religion is completely unattractive. I also agree that information does decrease it, and also folks are willing to kill people who try to rob and invade homes nowadays. Robbers really want no resistance.

You mentioned a link between the availability of guns to the public and a decrease in violence earlier in this thread. I'm not so sure such a correlation exists. Do you have any statistical evidence favoring this view? On the simplest possible level, societies with less access to guns tend to be less violent, though those nations also tend to be more wealthy and with less inequality (and thus have fewer people likely to resort to violence).

A quick search shows relatively little rigorous comparison between gun access and aggregate violence. The closest thing to a real test might be Australia, where it doesn't seem like changes in gun access changed much either way in terms of overall violence.

 

[jackstar7]

Everyone has beliefs whether they admit it or not!

Who doesn't admit it? Whom are you arguing against?

The argument is that one group bases their beliefs in logic and evidence, and one bases it in faith.

 

[Retro Rob]

Hypothetically, if you get a staph infection, do you just pray to god about it, or turn to scientifically derived medicines? If god heals you, you have even stronger faith than before and will continue doing his work as best you can on earth. If he doesn't heal you, you get to go to eternal paradise. Why take the medicine if god is in charge and was helping people in the past when things 'weren't worse'?

Why does there have to be a dichotomy between praying to God and using science, as if you cannot do both at the same time?

If you read the OT, you'd clearly see that it promotes scientific facts (example: Ancient Israel had to bury their feces and couldn't not return to camp after touching a dead body until they washed, and infected people were to stay outside the population until they were healed), none of those things required modern medicine, but are very basic ways to prevent the spread of disease.

Secondly, they didn't have the plethora of sicknesses that we have to deal with back then. Hence, why do you think they were disallowed from eating certain foods?

I don't know all the details, but the dietary prohibitions in part prevented sicknesses.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why does there have to be a dichotomy between praying to God and using science, as if you cannot do both at the same time?

If you read the OT, you'd clearly see that it promotes scientific facts (example: Ancient Israel had to bury their feces and couldn't not return to camp after touching a dead body until they washed, and infected people were to stay outside the population until they were healed), none of those things required modern medicine, but are very basic ways to prevent the spread of disease.

Secondly, they didn't have the plethora of sicknesses that we have to deal with back then. Hence, why do you think they were disallowed from eating certain foods?

I don't know all the details, but the dietary prohibitions in part prevented sicknesses.

I never said you can't use science and pray, but that's missing the point. Why does the christian god need science to get results?

Certain dietary restrictions mentioned in the bible, as you said possibly due to the spread of certain sicknesses. That sounds pretty man-made to me... just saying.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Why does there have to be a dichotomy between praying to God and using science, as if you cannot do both at the same time?

I agree with you that belief in god can coexist with science, but only if the nature of your belief doesn't restrict what you will accept from science as the best current theories explaining the physical world/universe. When belief requires the rejection of evolution in favor of biblical creationism or the rejection of geology in favor of a biblical worldwide flood, then it obviously can't coexist with science. Intending no offense, you sometimes post statements that suggest to me that your beliefs do put limits on what you can accept from science.

If you read the OT, you'd clearly see that it promotes scientific facts (example: Ancient Israel had to bury their feces and couldn't not return to camp after touching a dead body until they washed, and infected people were to stay outside the population until they were healed), none of those things required modern medicine, but are very basic ways to prevent the spread of disease.

Are you suggesting that such practices were divinely revealed? If so, do you then think that god made similar revelations to other cultures that followed similar practices?

Secondly, they didn't have the plethora of sicknesses that we have to deal with back then. Hence, why do you think they were disallowed from eating certain foods?

I don't know all the details, but the dietary prohibitions in part prevented sicknesses.

Aside from AIDS, I'm wondering what other sicknesses you think that people didn't have "back then". Are you suggesting that the old testament rules prohibiting the eating of certain foods were responsible for there being fewer sicknesses? If so, do you think it follows that ignoring these prohibitions is the cause of increased sicknesses? Should we all stop eating bacon?

Actually, I see the biblical prohibition against eating pork as a good example of what was very reasonable in historic times when pigs often carried parasites like trichinosis. Given our better understanding of parasites and our ability to now raise pigs that are (largely) parasite free, the reason for the biblical prohibition no longer exists. While most believers have "moved on", there are still many who adhere to the biblical prohibitions. To me, this is another example of science being ignored in favor of belief.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Aside from AIDS, I'm wondering what other sicknesses you think that people didn't have "back then". Are you suggesting that the old testament rules prohibiting the eating of certain foods were responsible for there being fewer sicknesses? If so, do you think it follows that ignoring these prohibitions is the cause of increased sicknesses? Should we all stop eating bacon?

There is certainly a wider variety of diseases available in the current era, simply by larger movement of people across the world. The Americas never experienced smallpox until the arrival of Europeans, and likewise Europe had never come across Syphilis until then. That said, the impact of disease has been drastically reduced from previous eras by hygene, public heath policies, and most importantly antibiotics and vaccines. When was last time you heard of a mass outbreak of bubonic or pneumonic plague? Those diseases have in the past killed tens of millions (including over a third of Europe during the Black Plague), but are now an afterthought. As you suggested, the risk of dying of disease is far lower now than in biblical times.

Actually, I see the biblical prohibition against eating pork as a good example of what was very reasonable in historic times when pigs often carried parasites like trichinosis. Given our better understanding of parasites and our ability to now raise pigs that are (largely) parasite free, the reason for the biblical prohibition no longer exists. While most believers have "moved on", there are still many who adhere to the biblical prohibitions. To me, this is another example of science being ignored in favor of belief.

I only have two thoughts to add to this. The first is that germ theory is very new. We've only had an inkling that disease could be caused by microbial organisms for about 200 years. In biblical times, if you ate something and got sick, it was reasonable to say "God must be punishing me for eating this food" and thus forbid its consumption.

The second is that things like Kosher law serve a secondary purpose beyond disease transmission. By establishing a set of common foods that your religion doesn't eat, you create a cultural divide between those who are part of the religion and those who do not. It can be very difficult for someone who is not Kosher to prepare food for someone who strictly observes Jewish law. That, along with other ritual customs, allows the religion in question to maintain a separateness from the rest of society.

 

[alzan]

I find it almost comical and laughable that Atheists in general honestly believe that there would be less violence or no violence if the world as a whole was null and void of religion....

I remember reading something that goes like this --
Overly religious people who think that everyone else in the world is wrong who doesn't believe like them will not have peace. Similarly, atheists who are determined to convince everyone that there is not a God will not be peaceful either. Peace comes from personal security in one's beliefs.

Everyone has beliefs whether they admit it or not!

I find it just as comical that Theists in general believe there would be less or no violence if the world practiced the same religion.

Peace comes from different and cumulative sources, it is not limited by one's beliefs or lack thereof. Personally, my sense of peace comes from love and respect of myself and other people, from the due diligence I practice in group or personal relations, from risk assessment for situations I'm in or in which I may be involved, etc..

"Belief" has more meaning than just in a religious or spiritual sense.

 

[moonbogg]

I was going to make a new thread, but it will just die quick, so i'll post here. I want to ask your opinions on taking the universe and life at face value. What I mean is imagine you could see the big bang happen, I duno, maybe 1 million years after it happened. You have a bunch of radiation and eventually dust and whatever else.
Take a picture of that and hold it up to a picture of the experience of life we have now.
So you have two pictures side by side. The one on the left is a still image of hot radiation and dust etc. The one on the right shows a still image from the drama of experience we currently know.
What are your reactions and thoughts when seeing the two pictures?

 

[alzan]

I was going to make a new thread, but it will just die quick, so i'll post here. I want to ask your opinions on taking the universe and life at face value. What I mean is imagine you could see the big bang happen, I duno, maybe 1 million years after it happened. You have a bunch of radiation and eventually dust and whatever else.
Take a picture of that and hold it up to a picture of the experience of life we have now.
So you have two pictures side by side. The one on the left is a still image of hot radiation and dust etc. The one on the right shows a still image from the drama of experience we currently know.
What are your reactions and thoughts when seeing the two pictures?

I'm not sure what you going for but I'll bite. I see:

Birth - Life;
Before - After
Chaotic - Tame

Two pictures that speak to the continual expansion of our universe;

I also see subject matter (pun intended) in which I've had a lifelong interest; although admittedly I more easily grasp the big picture than the many details.

 

[mrcharles]

OP, good idea, I'm for it.

 

[inachu]

nothing will bring peace to the world. Man is as man was and will be forever more.
Just bag of emotions to rule and gain power by lies or death or by religion.

So called CANNON is mans way to say this part is good and this part is bad when in regarding the Bible. Again he Bible warns of this but cannon law delete Bible pages as if mans wisdom know better than GOD.

 

[sandorski]

nothing will bring peace to the world. Man is as man was and will be forever more.
Just bag of emotions to rule and gain power by lies or death or by religion.

So called CANNON is mans way to say this part is good and this part is bad when in regarding the Bible. Again he Bible warns of this but cannon law delete Bible pages as if mans wisdom know better than GOD.

The "Wisdom of God" always comes from the mouth or pen of another Man.

 

[Retro Rob]

The "Wisdom of God" always comes from the mouth or pen of another Man.

So what?

That doesn't mean the words aren't those of God, though. You do know that CEO's have secretaries write memos and letters for them, yet, those are still the words and thoughts of the CEO, even if the CEO never actually proves that that HE dictated those words in the letter/memo.

You take it on a measure of faith, because you know he exists...the Bible writers know the same of God and so do those who worship him today, so we accept them as the words of God.

 

[sandorski]

So what?

That doesn't mean the words aren't those of God, though. You do know that CEO's have secretaries write memos and letters for them, yet, those are still the words and thoughts of the CEO, even if the CEO never actually proves that that HE dictated those words in the letter/memo.

You take it on a measure of faith, because you know he exists...the Bible writers know the same of God and so do those who worship him today, so we accept them as the words of God.

No, you accept the words of Men who claimed to be listening to "God".

 

[Retro Rob]

No, you accept the words of Men who claimed to be listening to "God".

You accept the words of a secretary who claimed to be listening to the CEO.

But...I get your point. God cannot be objectively proven to have dictated the words like a CEO can, so there is a big difference.

 

[Dessicant]

So what?

That doesn't mean the words aren't those of God, though. You do know that CEO's have secretaries write memos and letters for them, yet, those are still the words and thoughts of the CEO, even if the CEO never actually proves that that HE dictated those words in the letter/memo.

You take it on a measure of faith, because you know he exists...the Bible writers know the same of God and so do those who worship him today, so we accept them as the words of God.

So what? That means words you speak can be declared as "from God". In fact anyone can speak for God. There are no qualifications necessary. And, as we see with, say, ISIS or American fundies, "anyone" is speaking for God at any given point of time. It's always arbitrary and unverifiable because once you leave Reality, anything goes. Literally anything.