Is science incompatible with religion?

[Autumn]

If government without religion is statistically less violent than government with religion... It stands to reason that religious dogma is more violent than secular dogma. I'm not sure what you disagree with. The stats, the conclusion, or what.

A religion without government is also statistically violent than a religion without governmental power.

The original point doesn't stand.

When you say that religion isn't inherently bad, I'm not sure what kind of nature you're referring to. Actually, it doesn't matter

Except that's not my original point.

"My point about religion, and government was, in this instance, is that if you want to dig into the past, then everything is proven to fail. At this standard they are using, there is no good way of doing things and there is nothing good in this world. After all, every war and every atrocity committed was committed at the hands of humanity. I don't see any of these anti-religion advocates, advocating for the genocide or incarceration of all of humanity. I just think they're very poor arguing points. I don't say that they're wrong- I just think their arguments are bad and my opinion on the issue is different from theirs."

^THAT's my point.

I'm not saying they're wrong in saying the idea that people follow an organisation that claims to preach the truth regardless of evidence or morality. I don't think idealogical orthodoxy is at all a good thing. What I'm saying is, I see they do enough good in the world that I don't think it's fair to demonise everyone IN it, and to disregard everything good religion DOES do.

As for my opinion on religion, I don't think religion is inherently bad, I think people can be. I've seen religion used for both good and bad, the only factor that is different is who the religion is peddled by. I can agree that religion isn't innocuous, in fact it's quite a lot like a gun. But in the end I still think it's people, that are to blame, and if you eradicate and demonise organised religion- Then what? That's not going to solve anything. People who want to lean on things will find something to lean against. And small cults are far more damaging than organised religion with the watchful eye of anti-religion zealots on them.

I can agree that in some hypothetical world where you can SOMEHOW get rid of ideological orthodoxy- Sure, get rid of organised religion. But I see no way to do that and none of these anti-religion zealots seem to be able to come up with a real world solution either. Again, I'm not arguing that religion is good. I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out, and I think demonising it does a lot more harm than good in the modern west.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Autumn

[Makaze]

A religion without government is also statistically violent than a religion without governmental power.

Restated, "if you take away the power to be violent, they aren't as violent". If religion is a beast such that if it has power, it will abuse it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse power even if it is never granted that opportunity. This is a non-point.

Except that's not my original point.

^THAT's my point.

... but that point doesn't make sense in this conversation. One reader might think you mean that we should accept a worse atrocity because we accept lesser ones, which is ridiculous. Another might think you mean that we should accept lesser atrocities because we accept worse ones, which is just as ridiculous. No matter which order they interpret, the reader must conclude that you mean that we must accept all atrocities or give up completely. Where is the option to cull harmful ideas? Where is the option to promote less harmful alternatives?

I can agree that in some hypothetical world where you can SOMEHOW get rid of ideological orthodoxy- Sure, get rid of organised religion.

...

I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out.

Do you see the problem here?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Makaze

[Autumn]

Restated, "if you take away the power to be violent, they aren't as violent". If religion is a beast such that if it has power, it will abuse it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse power even if it is never granted that opportunity. This is a non-point.

Which is the same thing that could be said about government. Take away the thing that can lead a government to do bad things away, then it won't do bad things. If a government is such a beast that if it has a reason, it will abuse it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse the any reason, even something as absurd as a flying man on a cloud. This is a non point. I don't think you can objectively say which is more damaging than the other.

... but that point doesn't make sense in this conversation. One reader might think you mean that we should accept a worse atrocity because we accept lesser ones, which is ridiculous. Another might think you mean that we should accept lesser atrocities because we accept worse ones, which is just as ridiculous. No matter which order they interpret, the reader must conclude that you mean that we must accept all atrocities or give up completely. Where is the option to cull harmful ideas? Where is the option to promote less harmful alternatives?

You tell me. Tell me one good way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy by demonising it, without things simply getting worse. I'm not disagreeing with you that ideological orthodoxy is bad, I don't disagree that everything religion can do, something secular can do better. I think the world is less than is ideal. But I'm going to accept the existence of a religion that is so fiercely regulated by people staring it down all the time, waiting for a chance to snipe at it and pick it up as an example to push their narrative that religion should be eradicated. Religion isn't going away no matter what you do, even if you revive the soviet union it's not going to work. Get rid of the big religions and small cults will spring up. Get rid of those and you will have ideological orthodoxy under another banner, such as identity politics. I'm willing to accept it, because I see no way this can get any better immediately than it is now if you just try to get rid of it with force.

As for my point, that's an add on to everything else I say about how getting rid of religion in such a way is not going to work. In that context, I'm sure it makes more sense. Not only is your justification completely ignoring the greater of the evils, it also tries to get rid of this evil that serves as the stopper something bigger were you to strike it down violently (somehow).

Think about it this way. Okay if you somehow bring down the big religions with the pure force of propaganda. Having everyone turn upon their kindly, well-doing religions friends, and forcibly converting them, Hitler youth style. Is that an ending you think is better than having modern western religion be as it is now?

How about if you got the state and banned religion. How well did that work for the Soviet Union? Now you have BOTH little cults operating under the radar and an authoritarian government. Is that an ending you would prefer?

The only way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy is through time, education and understanding, NOT demonisation. Teach people ways you can stand without having to believe you are a slave to a greater being. Teach people moral values without the nastiness in holy texts. You don't rile up hatred and demonise people who do good but simply believes something you don't believe. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm saying people like dondon were doing this and that's the only thing I had a problem with. And even with this method, I doubt it would work. Religion is rampant among humans, the only way I can see it is that it's ingrained within our very natures to not want to die forever. QED it's here to stay, so do what is most practical, with the assumption that it's not going to go away. That is, talk to them, tell them not to be a zealot. Teach them about morality. But demonising them and making enemies of all of them is going to solve nothing. It's going to make things worse.

Do you see the problem here?

"I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out." In the context of everything else I had said. Let me make that clearer for you. "I'm saying organised religion as a whole does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out, because it is so much better than every solution you can hope to propose that involves force. Because of every *individual* moderate within it, doing good."

The demonisation of an entire demographic of people is an injustice and it is damaging. It is authoritarian and collectivist, and I don't see how this is even a tenable position for anyone to morally, logically or pragmatically hold.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Autumn

[Makaze]

Which is the same thing that could be said about government. Take away the thing that can lead a government to do bad things away, then it won't do bad things. If a government is such a beast that if it has a reason, it will abuse it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse the any reason, even something as absurd as a flying man on a cloud. This is a non point. I don't think you can objectively say which is more damaging than the other.

I think you've gotten mixed up. A government without the power to govern is not a government. If you take away the ability to abuse power then you must have either abolished the sovereign institution or created a more powerful one that can govern it. Governments take all shapes--theocracy, dictatorship, state communism, democracy, republic. Why? Because what makes them governments is their power to govern people, not their structure, nor their ideologies. Let's get something straight. When religious people are in power, they are the government. They aren't "in control" of the government. They are it. Likewise, when secular people "have control of the government", the secular people are the government. You're implying that there is an inherent separation of church and state even if the church is the governing power, which is wrong.

Restated, we can substitute different types of government in your example:

"If a theocracy is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

"If a secular republic is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

These two statements can be compared. However, it does not make sense to compare a particular instance of a government to the class of government itself:

"If a type of government is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

"If government is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

Because this is just generalizing the statement, not comparing different examples. You can't say which is worse because you've made a category mistake.

Comparing the first two statements is what I am trying to do. My position is that both statements are true; secular governments are abusive in their nature, and so are theocracies. However, they are not equally abusive. Theocracies are worse. Ergo, the nature of the beasts are not equal. The nature of the ideology behind theocracy is worse than the nature of the ideology behind secularism, even if one of them is granted the opportunity to abuse and the other is not.

You tell me. Tell me one good way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy by demonising it, without things simply getting worse. I'm not disagreeing with you that ideological orthodoxy is bad, I don't disagree that everything religion can do, something secular can do better. I think the world is less than is ideal. But I'm going to accept the existence of a religion that is so fiercely regulated by people staring it down all the time, waiting for a chance to snipe at it and pick it up as an example to push their narrative that religion should be eradicated. Religion isn't going away no matter what you do, even if you revive the soviet union it's not going to work. Get rid of the big religions and small cults will spring up. Get rid of those and you will have ideological orthodoxy under another banner, such as identity politics. I'm willing to accept it, because I see no way this can get any better immediately than it is now if you just try to get rid of it with force.

As for my point, that's an add on to everything else I say about how getting rid of religion in such a way is not going to work. In that context, I'm sure it makes more sense. Not only is your justification completely ignoring the greater of the evils, it also tries to get rid of this evil that serves as the stopper something bigger were you to strike it down violently (somehow).

Think about it this way. Okay if you somehow bring down the big religions with the pure force of propaganda. Having everyone turn upon their kindly, well-doing religions friends, and forcibly converting them, Hitler youth style. Is that an ending you think is better than having modern western religion be as it is now?

How about if you got the state and banned religion. How well did that work for the Soviet Union? Now you have BOTH little cults operating under the radar and an authoritarian government. Is that an ending you would prefer?

The only way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy is through time, education and understanding, NOT demonisation. Teach people ways you can stand without having to believe you are a slave to a greater being. Teach people moral values without the nastiness in holy texts. You don't rile up hatred and demonise people who do good but simply believes something you don't believe. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm saying people like dondon were doing this and that's the only thing I had a problem with. And even with this method, I doubt it would work. Religion is rampant among humans, the only way I can see it is that it's ingrained within our very natures to not want to die forever. QED it's here to stay, so do what is most practical, with the assumption that it's not going to go away. That is, talk to them, tell them not to be a zealot. Teach them about morality. But demonising them and making enemies of all of them is going to solve nothing. It's going to make things worse.

"I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out." In the context of everything else I had said. Let me make that clearer for you. "I'm saying organised religion as a whole does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out, because it is so much better than every solution you can hope to propose that involves force. Because of every *individual* moderate within it, doing good."

The demonisation of an entire demographic of people is an injustice and it is damaging. It is authoritarian and collectivist, and I don't see how this is even a tenable position for anyone to morally, logically or pragmatically hold.

Wrong. You are saying you want to get rid of organized religion. You would if you could. This is a claim that organized religion deserves to die. Then you say that organized religion does not deserves to be demonized as something "to be stamped out". This is another way of saying "Organized religion does not deserve to be told that it deserves to die". You have created a contradiction by saying the very thing you believe we should not say.

That was about your original claims. These new claims contradict the old ones directly. How can you want to do away with religion and in the same instant think that religion is worth having around?

The logical conclusion of your statements is that we should defend and justify the status quo, whatever it may be (government, religion), until it can be eradicated without a fuss. Then the gloves can come off and we can drop the pretense that what is going on right now is okay.

[dragonlordsd]

Wrong. You are saying you want to get rid of organized religion. You would if you could. This is a claim that organized religion deserves to die. Then you say that organized religion does not deserves to be demonized as something "to be stamped out". This is another way of saying "Organized religion does not deserve to be told that it deserves to die". You have created a contradiction by saying the very thing you believe we should not say.

That was about your original claims. These new claims contradict the old ones directly. How can you want to do away with religion and in the same instant think that religion is worth having around?

The logical conclusion of your statements is that we should defend and justify the status quo, whatever it may be (government, religion), until it can be eradicated without a fuss. Then the gloves can come off and we can drop the pretense that what is going on right now is okay.

Jumping in in the middle here, I'd say almost all problems are coming from disorganized religion, rather than organized religion. Pretty much all of the organized, bureaucratic religions are peaceful. It's the outliers that are the problem. The cults, sects, and other splinter groups that really believe the crazy stuff.

[Irysa]

Every war ever was started by a government. What are governments for.

Quite aside from the tangent you and Makaze have taken, I think it's quite obvious that humans suck, so this is to be expected. Not that it's ideal, but expected.

Are we supposed to expect religious institutions to be as useless at determining moral evils as everyone else is? Isn't the whole premise of claiming divine insight and backing and thus having assurance in the morality of an action meant to elevate the religious institution above solely human affiliated ones?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Irysa

[Autumn]

I think you've gotten mixed up. A government without the power to govern is not a government. If you take away the ability to abuse power then you must have either abolished the sovereign institution or created a more powerful one that can govern it. Governments take all shapes--theocracy, dictatorship, state communism, democracy, republic. Why? Because what makes them governments is their power to govern people, not their structure, nor their ideologies. Let's get something straight. When religious people are in power, they are the government. They aren't "in control" of the government. They are it. Likewise, when secular people "have control of the government", the secular people are the government. You're implying that there is an inherent separation of church and state even if the church is the governing power, which is wrong.

Restated, we can substitute different types of government in your example:

"If a theocracy is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

"If a secular republic is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

These two statements can be compared. However, it does not make sense to compare a particular instance of a government to the class of government itself:

"If a type of government is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

"If government is such a beast that it abuses power when it has it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse it even if it is never granted that opportunity."

Because this is just generalizing the statement, not comparing different examples. You can't say which is worse because you've made a category mistake.

Comparing the first two statements is what I am trying to do. My position is that both statements are true; secular governments are abusive in their nature, and so are theocracies. However, they are not equally abusive. Theocracies are worse. Ergo, the nature of the beasts are not equal. The nature of the ideology behind theocracy is worse than the nature of the ideology behind secularism, even if one of them is granted the opportunity to abuse and the other is not.

Except you changed "religion" to something like "the papacy". I was talking about an ideaology. Ideaologies are not governments, no one calls it that, I wasn't referring to this definition of government you have decided to use. Otherwise all ideologies are government all ideologies can lead people astray, let's somehow abolish them, as if you can objectively dictate whether it is right to do so or not.

Not all religions are institutions. Catharism told people to not follow the pope and instead focus more on Jesus's teachings. That didn't cause damage. Buddhism just got murdered a lot in history. Is that a government? Government by the definition of it, and the commonly referred to idea of it, is the dangerous organisation. Theocracies are a government too. But I wasn't referred to that, religions which =/= theocracies. Theocracies are the combination of government and religion, which is what I agreed, was worse.

Nice strawman anyway.

Wrong. You are saying you want to get rid of organized religion. You would if you could. This is a claim that organized religion deserves to die.

In a hypothetical world. You texas sharpshooter.

This is another way of saying "Organized religion does not deserve to be told that it deserves to die". You have created a contradiction by saying the very thing you believe we should not say.

What? No it doesn't. In a hypothetical world where you can purge something only minimally bad, then sure. But this is NOT that hypothetical world, therefore they dont' deserve to die and they shouldn't be told to do so. What are you talking about.

That was about your original claims. These new claims contradict the old ones directly. How can you want to do away with religion and in the same instant think that religion is worth having around?

...Because you can't? You can't mind control people? The current religious institutions in the west are doing quite a lot of good? Better than any of the solutions one can propose???

The logical conclusion of your statements is that we should defend and justify the status quo, whatever it may be (government, religion), until it can be eradicated without a fuss.

A fuss is an understatement. I don't mind mess. I just don't want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship as a result.

Then the gloves can come off and we can drop the pretense that what is going on right now is okay.

Nice. So, how are you going to abolish religion, friend? You have yet to tell me a method that does NOT in fact result in a worse situation than you had started out with.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Autumn

[dondon151]

Jumping in in the middle here, I'd say almost all problems are coming from disorganized religion, rather than organized religion. Pretty much all of the organized, bureaucratic religions are peaceful. It's the outliers that are the problem. The cults, sects, and other splinter groups that really believe the crazy stuff.

this sounds like a pretty meaningless distinction that arises from wordplay. why are cults not organized religion? they are pretty damn well organized, probably even better than what you define as true organized religion. the catholic church is struggling to settle on a consistent, coherent message whereas ISIS is pretty monolithic in its worldview and quite competent at running a state.

[Makaze]

Except you changed "religion" to something like "the papacy". I was talking about an ideaology. Ideaologies are not governments, no one calls it that, I wasn't referring to this definition of government you have decided to use. Otherwise all ideologies are government all ideologies can lead people astray, let's somehow abolish them, as if you can objectively dictate whether it is right to do so or not.

Not all religions are institutions. Catharism told people to not follow the pope and instead focus more on Jesus's teachings. That didn't cause damage. Buddhism just got murdered a lot in history. Is that a government? Government by the definition of it, and the commonly referred to idea of it, is the dangerous organisation. Theocracies are a government too. But I wasn't referred to that, religions which =/= theocracies. Theocracies are the combination of government and religion, which is what I agreed, was worse.

Nice strawman anyway.

In a hypothetical world. You texas sharpshooter.

What? No it doesn't. In a hypothetical world where you can purge something only minimally bad, then sure. But this is NOT that hypothetical world, therefore they dont' deserve to die and they shouldn't be told to do so. What are you talking about.

...Because you can't? You can't mind control people? The current religious institutions in the west are doing quite a lot of good? Better than any of the solutions one can propose???

A fuss is an understatement. I don't mind mess. I just don't want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship as a result.

Nice. So, how are you going to abolish religion, friend? You have yet to tell me a method that does NOT in fact result in a worse situation than you had started out with.

I don't know how you mixed this up. I did the opposite of what you said. I was pointing out that you cannot compare an ideology to government in general unless government in general is an ideology in itself (it is not). Therefore your point doesn't make sense because you are comparing an ideology with something else.

Go back. Start over. Religion and theocracy are not mutually inclusive. My comparison draws from potential harm. If an ideology would do more harm than another ideology when given the same amount of power as the other, then that ideology has a more harmful nature even if no one has any power. That's how inherent nature works: it persists independent of context. Therefore a religion that has no power is still potentially as dangerous as a theocracy because it in its nature to be that way. In this part of the conversation we were talking about the inherent nature of the beast and not the way things actually happened because you didn't like it when I appealed to the way things are right now. At this point it's feeling like you want to switch between "it's not inherently that bad" and "it's not literally that bad" to suit your whims while blaming me for only arguing against religion it in one of the two ways at one time.

I didn't start to argue for the existence of religion as an institution by comparing it to government (all governments are institutions). Earlier in the thread I explained why I believe even personal faith is detrimental. This institution tangent happened because you drew a comparison with government. This one's on you.

You're not listening to yourself. Read these statements again.

I can agree that in some hypothetical world where you can SOMEHOW get rid of ideological orthodoxy- Sure, get rid of organised religion.

I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out.

Firstly, what someone deserves is not dependent on whether it can happen to them by any definition of the word. I hope you can see the logic behind the argument that if someone deserves justice, they deserve it even if they cannot get it due to a legal loophole. With that in mind, there is no way that these two statements do not contradict. In order to resolve this contradiction, either statement a or statement b must be a lie (what I read into it), "stamping out" must be different from "getting rid of" (in which case resolution requires more precise language), or you are using your own definition of "deserve" that depends on how possible it is.

As things stand, what you said reads like this: "X deserves to be eliminated on its own merit." -> "X cannot be eliminated, therefore it does not deserve to be eliminated on its own merit." If that's not what you meant then it's a simple misunderstanding. Does that clear up why it looks like a contradiction to me?

Edited November 15, 2015 by Makaze

[Autumn]

I don't know how you mixed this up. I did the opposite of what you said. I was pointing out that you cannot compare an ideology to government in general unless government in general is an ideology in itself (it is not). Therefore your point doesn't make sense because you are comparing an ideology with something else.

But it does make sense because of the 'lesser evil, greater evil' point you, yourself made. It doesn't matter if you are comparing apples and oranges if both of them are made of atoms. Just like both government and ideaologies have a history of committing atrocities. I don't know how you can cut such a demonstrable fact.

My comparison draws from potential harm. If an ideology would do more harm than another ideology when given the same amount of power as the other, then that ideology has a more harmful nature even if no one has any power. That's how inherent nature works: it persists independent of context.

But the ONLY ideology we have mentioned throughout this whole discussion is religion. We have not compared two ideologies and the relative magnitude of them. That makes no sense.

Also, then isn't it the job of secular government and education, to ensure they DON'T get any power? Wouldn't the produce the same functional result than had you forcibly eradicated religion? I would in fact, argue that the former solution of secularism ensuring the balance of power would result in a better world because people are free to think and say whatever they _want_. Thus upholding the values of free speech you didn't disagree with me on, in the freedom discussion.

I didn't start to argue for the existence of religion as an institution by comparing it to government (all governments are institutions). Earlier in the thread I explained why I believe even personal faith is detrimental. This institution tangent happened because you drew a comparison with government. This one's on you.

Yes, but I said they were both terrible in the context of what dondon said. You took that and decided to see which is more harmful religon or government as if they were even comparable.

Firstly, what someone deserves is not dependent on whether it can happen to them by any definition of the word. I hope you can see the logic behind the argument that if someone deserves justice, they deserve it even if they cannot get it due to a legal loophole.

No. That's moronic. Just because something is objectively inadequate and if you can magically find a better solution then I think it deserves to go- Does not mean that it also deserves it when if you cannot, that's how you create a *dystopia* that's not justice for the peaceful members of the religion. Religion deserves to be told that it is imperfect and people have done so. I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem is, is the idea of somehow purging religion through force of propaganda like demonisation. If someone is human and makes a human mistake, they don't deserve to erased from the world or socially ostracised, they deserve to be TOLD that they can do better.

If someone are not committing any crimes in their lifetime they should not be purged- they never did anything to hurt anyone. If modern religion isn't holding crusades and all they are doing is peddling charities and volunteer programs, then they do not deserve to be purged. Purging people for wrongthink is authoritarian and just plain wrong. You are drawing a false equivalency here. Just because said, 'oh it would be nice if the world is more ideal' doesn't mean I approve of draconian tactics to achieve this end, and it doesn't mean that the judgement of it's merit is transmissible between contexts, in this case entire WORLDS.

In order to resolve this contradiction, either statement a or statement b must be a lie (what I read into it), "stamping out" must be different from "getting rid of" (in which case resolution requires more precise language), or you are using your own definition of "deserve" that depends on how possible it is.

As things stand, what you said reads like this: "X deserves to be eliminated on its own merit." -> "X cannot be eliminated, therefore it does not deserve to be eliminated on its own merit." If that's not what you meant then it's a simple misunderstanding. Does that clear up why it looks like a contradiction to me?

They don't contradict because of the context of the statement. In a different world with magical ways, then sure in that world it deserves to be stamped out because there is something more idea and is realistically attainable. But in THIS world it is not, and in THIS world, on the grounds of practicality, no I DON'T think they deserve it because there IS no option better than the one they provide. They DO deserve to be told that the idea of religion is not ideal not to be eradicated through turning it into a heresy. If my reason for thinking it deserves to be eliminated is based on the merit that it is imperfect in a perfect world, then it isn't applicable to this world where everything is imperfect. There is no contradiction.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Autumn

[Makaze]

But it does make sense because of the 'lesser evil, greater evil' point you, yourself made. It doesn't matter if you are comparing apples and oranges if both of them are made of atoms. Just like both government and ideaologies have a history of committing atrocities. I don't know how you can cut such a demonstrable fact.

But the ONLY ideology we have mentioned throughout this whole discussion is religion. We have not compared two ideologies and the relative magnitude of them. That makes no sense.

Also, then isn't it the job of secular government and education, to ensure they DON'T get any power? Wouldn't the produce the same functional result than had you forcibly eradicated religion? I would in fact, argue that the former solution of secularism ensuring the balance of power would result in a better world because people are free to think and say whatever they _want_. Thus upholding the values of free speech you didn't disagree with me on, in the freedom discussion.

Yes, but I said they were both terrible in the context of what dondon said. You took that and decided to see which is more harmful religon or government as if they were even comparable.

... Everything you've said above is untrue or misled. Every bit.

First paragraph: You cannot compare government in general and ideologies in particular. This type of comparison simply doesn't make sense. You would be comparing all the results of one ideology to all the governments that result from all ideologies. That includes governments that result from the ideology you are comparing to. This leads to a comparison of the ideology to itself by proxy. It's circular. Instead, you have to compare ideologies with each other by how the interact with government and vice versa so that there is no recursion.

Second paragraph: ... I... What? How did you miss the many times I said the literal words "secular ideology"?

Third paragraph: What people should do about the problem is outside the scope of this discussion. What I set out to do here is identity that a problem exists. You keep implying that if I do not have a way to eradicate religion then I have no right to say the world would be better off without it. I am not obligated to reason out how we would get from point a to point b if I can prove that point b is better. How to get there is for another time.

Fourth paragraph: Don't go into shock, but I have some bad news. We just learned that showing that two things have something in common is what we call a comparison. Whew. I'm glad that's on the table. Now, what was you said? Oh, yes. That government and religion have something in common. They are both atrocious. My goodness, how did you make that comparison before I made the false assumption that they were comparable?!

No. That's moronic. Just because something is objectively inadequate and if you can magically find a better solution then I think it deserves to go- Does not mean that it also deserves it when if you cannot, that's how you create a *dystopia* that's not justice for the peaceful members of the religion. Religion deserves to be told that it is imperfect and people have done so. I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem is, is the idea of somehow purging religion through force of propaganda like demonisation. If someone is human and makes a human mistake, they don't deserve to erased from the world or socially ostracised, they deserve to be TOLD that they can do better.

If someone are not committing any crimes in their lifetime they should not be purged- they never did anything to hurt anyone. If modern religion isn't holding crusades and all they are doing is peddling charities and volunteer programs, then they do not deserve to be purged. Purging people for wrongthink is authoritarian and just plain wrong. You are drawing a false equivalency here. Just because said, 'oh it would be nice if the world is more ideal' doesn't mean I approve of draconian tactics to achieve this end, and it doesn't mean that the judgement of it's merit is transmissible between contexts, in this case entire WORLDS.

They don't contradict because of the context of the statement. In a different world with magical ways, then sure in that world it deserves to be stamped out because there is something more idea and is realistically attainable. But in THIS world it is not, and in THIS world, on the grounds of practicality, no I DON'T think they deserve it because there IS no option better than the one they provide. If my reason for thinking it deserves to be eliminated is based on the merit that it is imperfect in a perfect world, then it isn't applicable to this world where everything is imperfect. There is no contradiction.

Where was it said that the person should or would be purged? You're getting way ahead of yourself. Let me put it another way. Suppose that someone gets wronged. They deserve compensation. They cannot get it through the way they deserve to get it, peaceful negotiations. Above and beyond that, they cannot even get it by using force because they are too weak. They cannot even speak on their own behalf. They are powerless. Do they not deserve compensation despite all that?

You mistakenly assume that saying "X deserves Y" means that I support killing someone to makes sure X gets Y. Not so. I'm just saying that world would be a better place if X gets Y. It's the same with religion. I'm not saying we should kill all religious people. I'm not even saying we should make it harder for them to organize. I'm just saying the world would be a better place if faith were not a factor.

What I'm reading is "The world would be a better place without religion." followed by "Such a world cannot exist. Therefore, it would not be better if it could exist."

If your position is that a world where religion magically didn't exist would be great, but a world where we violently force religion out is not great, then it was a problem of precision of language. "Get rid of" and "stamp out" are not as expressive as what I just said. To me, it looked like you were talking about literally the same type of elimination in both scenarios. Hence a contradiction.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Makaze

[eclipse]

it's totally tomorrow, what are you looking at me for

Can you clarify your position here? I can't tell if you understand my point and are trying to refute it or are sidestepping it unintentionally.

It is possible that humans could be born with senses that are completely different from the ones we have. If no one is ever born with those senses then we cannot get so far as imagining what they would be like, but we know that if they did exist, it is possible that they could reveal new knowledge. After establishing that base case, imagine that we unlock 1,000 new senses and gain all of the knowledge that they give us access to. Does that 1,000 cover all possible senses? We can't know. What about 1,000,000 senses? What about 1,000,000,000?

Not quite. There's some things that I can observe, but can't explain, and it kinda pisses me off since it affects my food bill. I think God would fall under something like this.

A shining example of this is my stomach. I can observe what foods make me ill. I can draw out some patterns. But I don't know why I get sick off of the things I do, or why it affects my brain and my stomach. Nor can I explain what in the food causes my stomach to go ballistic.

For a kinda gross example from today. . .

I decided to eat my first egg in nearly a year. I hard-boiled an egg, and it tasted fine. About half an hour later, I wound up getting some pretty nasty stomach cramps in the car. I managed to make it to the bathroom, and the resulting mess was tinged yellow. The only symptom was a sore stomach.

What can I conclude?

- Since the egg didn't taste weird, this wasn't caused by a bad egg (or if it was rotten, I couldn't taste it)

- Since the only symptom was stomach pain, this wasn't a classic allergic reaction (otherwise, I'd have to worry about my airway closing up)

- Since I wound up needing to visit a bathroom less than an hour after eating the egg, and I didn't eat anything else, I can assume that the egg caused my stomach pain

- Since the result in the toilet was tinged yellow, I theorize that I saw bits of the egg yolk in the toilet

- If bits of the egg yolk were in the toilet, then it means that something in the egg caused my stomach to push everything out of my digestive system at double speed

- What I don't know is WHY my stomach cramped up when I ingested the egg

- It's the previous point that annoys me the most, because as long as I have a bunch of observations, and a bunch of traditional medical tests that come back normal (stool analysis, colonoscopy, etc.), I can't specifically say what's wrong with me

I think God is sort of like that incident in the spoiler tags - several of the miracles I've heard require self-reporting (so stuff like "making shit up" or "misinterpretation" are not outside of the realm of possibility). They also involve observation, but no solid conclusion other than "it's God". So, like my stupid stomach, it's a matter of perspective.

If you want to hear some of the, er, more extreme things that I've heard, do let me know.

(now I'm going to focus on stuff to reply to, for the sake of brevity; if you don't see it, that's me silently agreeing with it)

The ultimate conclusion of what I've been saying is that there can be no such thing as "true knowledge". When you say that you gain knowledge, you are not gaining facts. You have knowledge of what a unicorn is -- but unicorns don't exist. It is not a "fact" of unicorn physiology that they have a horn -- it's a definition. We say something exists when we have knowledge of our definition of the concept and we have knowledge that we experienced something fitting the description. The second one is a fact, but both are knowledge. You have no way of knowing whether to apply one definition or to apply another definition that would have the same results. You don't even know if there are other possible definitions you haven't thought of.

I think this is important, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. . .

There's no polite way to say this: What you're saying doesn't jive with your beliefs. Embracing uncertainty requires letting go of faith in all claims, including empirically evidenced ones. It requires being purely pragmatic. Seeing the inherent uncertainty in an unfalsifiable claim and still having faith it is true is not embracing its uncertainty, it is double-thinking of the form "This is both uncertain and certain at the same time." It is misleading to say that you are holding out for more knowledge if you know that true knowledge cannot be attained by any means.

Edit: TL;DR my entire position - Believing in something despite it being practically untrue is a direct contradiction of scientific principles.

Don't worry about being impolite, what's quoted above is perfectly fine.

There's a certain tolerance of uncertainty/certainty that I have. I can't very well doubt everything that I've ever sensed, because my mind wouldn't be able to handle it. Therefore, I trust what I can perceive directly. Furthermore, I'm almost certain that almost all humans have similar anatomy/systems, so if running into a closed door hurts for me, it'll probably hurt for you, and just about everyone else, too.

Next are those things that do exist, but I can't perceive directly. I can't see my own intestinal flora, but I hear that not washing your hands after using the bathroom can get you sick, and it's the bacteria's fault, so I wash my hands. I can't see the ultraviolet rays of the sun, but that's supposedly what causes sunburns, so if I'm out in the sun for a long time, I wear sunblock.

As the abstraction of knowledge increases, so does my uncertainty, but it's not a linear relationship. However, even though I do have uncertainty, I don't apply it to everything. Even a logical conclusion has a limit!

. . .and that's all for tonight. Blame some terrorists in France for my lack of motivation.

[Autumn]

.. Everything you've said above is untrue or misled. Every bit.

First paragraph: You cannot compare government in general and ideologies in particular.

You would be comparing all the results of one ideology to all the governments that result from all ideologies. That includes governments that result from the ideology you are comparing to. This leads to a comparison of the ideology to itself by proxy. It's circular. Instead, you have to compare ideologies with each other by how the interact with government and vice versa so that there is no recursion.

What? I was originally pointing out the things dondon was using to complain about religion, and saying that there are those exact same traits in other things like government and humanity. The person who made the first comparison is you, and I disagreed with it, because they're not comparable in that way.

If you want to discuss secular ideaology compared to religious ideaology, then there is nothing to discuss, I have made it very clear I agree that secular methods ARE usually better than religious ones, simply because they don't claim moral authority. But other than that I think both are a method of controlling people for, "their own good" there is nothing different between religious or secular governance other than that one claims moral authority and thus is potentially more damaging. But so what? That doesn't rule my first paragraph out because I was asking dondon to explain his logic behind this double standard I'm seeing. If they're somehow different, he should explain that.

What people should do about the problem is outside the scope of this discussion.

No it's not, the practicality of the things proposed by dondon is the ONLY thing I was concerned about. I don't care if it's wrong in some philosophical, hypothetical sense, what works works, what doesnt' work doesn't.

What I set out to do here is identity that a problem exists.

Yeah a problem exists, I never denied that.

You keep implying that if I do not have a way to eradicate religion then I have no right to say the world would be better off without it.

No you have a right to say it. I'll just say you have a severe lack of pragmatism and foresight for doing so. Because the world WON'T be better off without it, because every solution one can propose where the result is the eradication of all religion, is far worse than what you started off with. I also have a right to say this about you.

I am not obligated to reason out how we would get from point a to point b if I can prove that point b is better. How to get there is for another time.

Except you cannot separate the method in which an ends is achieved from the ends it does achieve. Reality doesn't work like that.

Fourth paragraph: Don't go into shock, but I have some bad news. We just learned that showing that two things have something in common is what we call a comparison. Whew. I'm glad that's on the table. Now, what was you said? Oh, yes. That government and religion have something in common. They are both atrocious. My goodness, how did you make that comparison before I made the false assumption that they were comparable?!

I was comparing the magnitude of damage that results from say, a loved one dying. And getting your arm chopped off. You can make the comparison (or I would prefer, observation) that these are both terrible things that have happened.

You started comparing, WHICH ONE is more damaging. As if emotional hurt as if emotional pain and physical pain is comparable.

Where was it said that the person should or would be purged? You're getting way ahead of yourself.

Uh what about Dondon and co demonising religion as if it's the right thing to do. You DO realise that's the basis of my entire argument? You realise I am throughly uninterested in fantasy conclusions with no explanation as to how to get there?

Let me put it another way. Suppose that someone gets wronged. They deserve compensation. They cannot get it through the way they deserve to get it, peaceful negotiations. Above and beyond that, they cannot even get it by using force because they are too weak. They cannot even speak on their own behalf. They are powerless. Do they not deserve compensation despite all that?

You mean. Person B, gets wronged by person C in community A. This person C has been dead for quite some time. The community has changed leadership and has changed many, many of it's ways. The rest of the people in the community preach goodwill and kindness. Person B wants compensation. They cannot get it through the way they deserve to get it, peaceful negotiations. Above and beyond that, they cannot even get it by using force because they are too weak. They cannot even speak on their own behalf. They are powerless.

Does the community, have to recompensate person B? For something they never did? Do they deserve to be demonised to be ostracised for their thoughts on an old man on a cloud?

You mistakenly assume that saying "X deserves Y" means that I support killing someone to makes sure X gets Y. Not so. I'm just saying that world would be a better place if X gets Y.

I just mistakenly assumed that you weren't daydreaming so hard that you forget about all possible methods that X could possibly get Y. Which is the ONLY thing I took issue with.

If you mean, if the world no longer has ideological orthodoxy. Then we agree. What are we arguing about?

It's the same with religion. I'm not saying we should kill all religious people. I'm not even saying we should make it harder for them to organize. I'm just saying the world would be a better place if faith were not a factor.

Well that is what you mean then. In that case, we don't disagree. I only disagreed with demonising religion as an entirety and everyone in it because it's so counterproductive it hurts. If you're not defending that, then I have no issue. I DO think the world would be nicer without ideaological orthodoxy, I've said this many times.

Note: It would be nice =/= religion deserves everything it takes to eradicate it.

I think, religion deserves a peaceful willing death. Where all religious people gradually can see the world without resorting to fantasy explanations. But they do not deserve to be shunned and treated like a heresy by people.

What I'm reading is "The world would be a better place without religion." followed by "Such a world cannot exist. Therefore, it would not be better if it could exist."

No that's not what I'm saying. I agree it would be better. It could be worked towards and I am willing to help in that. But this "working towards" method is something I argue about because some anti-religion zealots seem to think it's productive to treat religious people like heretics.

If your position is that a world where religion magically didn't exist would be great, but a world where we violently force religion out is not great, then it was a problem of precision of language. "Get rid of" and "stamp out" are not as expressive as what I just said. To me, it looked like you were talking about literally the same type of elimination in both scenarios. Hence a contradiction.

I always thought you were referring to my stance against dondon. Which is why the premise is, that you guys think religion and religious people deserve to be treated with condemnation and everything is permitted to get rid of it, even if it means trying to ostracise an entire demographic through demonising it. Which is such a morally and logically untenable position I would be surprised if anyone who is not an ideologue actually thought that was a good idea.

If you don't think that, then I have no problem with you.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Autumn

[Makaze]

What? I was originally pointing out the things dondon was using to complain about religion, and saying that there are those exact same traits in other things like government and humanity. The person who made the first comparison is you, and I disagreed with it, because they're not comparable in that way.

If you want to discuss secular ideaology compared to religious ideaology, then there is nothing to discuss, I have made it very clear I agree that secular methods ARE usually better than religious ones, simply because they don't claim moral authority. But other than that I think both are a method of controlling people for, "their own good" there is nothing different between religious or secular governance other than that one claims moral authority and thus is potentially more damaging. But so what? That doesn't rule my first paragraph out because I was asking dondon to explain his logic behind this double standard I'm seeing. If they're somehow different, he should explain that.

I don't know many ways I can say this, but it does not make sense to compare something to a class that includes it. What if said "a serial killer has qualities that also exist in humanity"? It doesn't work because we already know that the serial killer is in the group called humanity. Likewise, what if I said "this group of humans has qualities that also exist in humanity"? Still not making sense. Now on to government. What if I said, "a particular group that seeks and has had power in the past has qualities that also exist in groups that have power"?

It follows logically that if A is a member of B, then some qualities of A contribute to the qualities of B. Therefore the qualities of B are the sum of qualities of its members, such that B.qualities = { C.qualities, D.qualities, E.qualities, F.qualities ... Z.qualities, A.qualities }. Suppose you loop through and compare all of the qualities of A with all of the qualities of B one after the other. Eventually you will get to comparing the qualities of A to the qualities of A, proving that the comparisons are a category mistake.

My comparison would compare A as it exists within B to C as it exists within B. Once again, I can compare A to C while filtering for qualities within B, not A to B or C to B. I could not compare C to B, A to B, D to B, or any of B's members to B. I cannot compare secular ideology with government. I cannot compare any ideology with government as long as government is not an ideology. Neither can you.

No it's not, the practicality of the things proposed by dondon is the ONLY thing I was concerned about. I don't care if it's wrong in some philosophical, hypothetical sense, what works works, what doesnt' work doesn't.

Yeah a problem exists, I never denied that.

No you have a right to say it. I'll just say you have a severe lack of pragmatism and foresight for doing so. Because the world WON'T be better off without it, because every solution one can propose where the result is the eradication of all religion, is far worse than what you started off with. I also have a right to say this about you.

Except you cannot separate the method in which an ends is achieved from the ends it does achieve. Reality doesn't work like that.

Yes. Yes, I can. Because the end is not achieved and I have not proposed that we come up with a plan to achieve it. In fact, I am not even saying that it should be achieved. I am saying that the universe would be a better place if it were no longer a factor. Personally I don't believe it is even possible to eradicate it without magic or some equivalent force. I don't care. I am capable of talking about how religion is harming people and how it would be better if that did not happen even if I personally believe it cannot possibly happen.

I was comparing the magnitude of damage that results from say, a loved one dying. And getting your arm chopped off. You can make the comparison (or I would prefer, observation) that these are both terrible things that have happened.

You started comparing, WHICH ONE is more damaging. As if emotional hurt as if emotional pain and physical pain is comparable.

Side note: Emotional pain and physical pain are comparable. They are both signals in the brain. It is possible to be unable to feel either due to "problems" with the wiring, even if your arm is cut off or you lose someone who is of use to you. We can also quantify which events cause the greatest damage to relative to mental faculties, short term and long term, or relative to physical faculties, short term and long term. Using a statistical analysis we could probably form a conclusion about which type of event is more damaging relative to several factors.

Uh what about Dondon and co demonising religion as if it's the right thing to do. You DO realise that's the basis of my entire argument? You realise I am throughly uninterested in fantasy conclusions with no explanation as to how to get there?

You mean. Person B, gets wronged by person C in community A. This person C has been dead for quite some time. The community has changed leadership and has changed many, many of it's ways. The rest of the people in the community preach goodwill and kindness. Person B wants compensation. They cannot get it through the way they deserve to get it, peaceful negotiations. Above and beyond that, they cannot even get it by using force because they are too weak. They cannot even speak on their own behalf. They are powerless.

Does the community, have to recompensate person B? For something they never did? Do they deserve to be demonised to be ostracised for their thoughts on an old man on a cloud?

I never said there was a community. You invented a backstory. There is no backstory. All I'm saying is that the world would have been better if C had compensated A. That can never happen. I never said the world would be better if citizen D compensated A. You're implying I meant that the world would be better if A got money through any means possible. That's wrong. I was trying to say "it is literally impossible for A to get what they deserve by any means, period, and they still deserve it".

In other words, the world is a harsh place, but even if can't get what you deserve... You still deserve it.

I just mistakenly assumed that you weren't daydreaming so hard that you forget about all possible methods that X could possibly get Y. Which is the ONLY thing I took issue with.

If you mean, if the world no longer has ideological orthodoxy. Then we agree. What are we arguing about?

Well that is what you mean then. In that case, we don't disagree. I only disagreed with demonising religion as an entirety and everyone in it because it's so counterproductive it hurts. If you're not defending that, then I have no issue. I DO think the world would be nicer without ideaological orthodoxy, I've said this many times.

I was never defending that. I never so much as suggested it. I said, "We can demonstrate that religious ideology is more harmful than secular ideology in practically every context you have brought up."

You ran with that statement, literally the words I said and nothing else, and added this on to the end: "... and because of that, any and all possible measures should be taken to make religious people change their minds, including harassment and violence."

Then you proceeded to argue against the imaginary second half of my sentence. I've been avoiding calling this a strawman because calling it that doesn't add anything to the discussion. I prefer just saying that you're jumping the gun, because that is what you're doing.

Read my posts. Scour them for any hint that I want violence, emotional or physical, visited upon the religious. I mean it. You need to know your enemy if you want to continue this.

Imagine my saying "Right-handed bullies are worse than left-handed bullies" and you saying "You are wrong to propose that we should abuse right-handed bullies." It would be obtuse of you to say that, right? Something similar is happening here.

Note: It would be nice =/= religion deserves everything it takes to eradicate it.

I think, religion deserves a peaceful willing death. Where all religious people gradually can see the world without resorting to fantasy explanations. But they do not deserve to be shunned and treated like a heresy by people.

No that's not what I'm saying. I agree it would be better. It could be worked towards and I am willing to help in that. But this "working towards" method is something I argue about because some anti-religion zealots seem to think it's productive to treat religious people like heretics.

I always thought you were referring to my stance against dondon. Which is why the premise is, that you guys think religion and religious people deserve to be treated with condemnation and everything is permitted to get rid of it, even if it means trying to ostracise an entire demographic through demonising it. Which is such a morally and logically untenable position I would be surprised if anyone who is not an ideologue actually thought that was a good idea.

If you don't think that, then I have no problem with you.

I don't even know what dondon's position is on this issue. I countered your analogy comparing religion and government in response to Irysa. Government had previously been irrelevant to the main discussion. I took us on a completely different path. Short version: You assume too much.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in justice or that people can deserve things independent of context. That's just how that word works. In my view, punishment and condemnation are only useful to the extent that they make the world a better place. I've been using "deserves" in place of "the world would be a better place if this were the case" because it's the word you were using and it's close enough to be understood. A good way to put it is that I think the world deserves to be the best it can be, but no particular person deserves for anything good or bad to happen them unless it helps the world at large.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Makaze

[dondon151]

Which is why the premise is, that you guys think religion and religious people deserve to be treated with condemnation and everything is permitted to get rid of it, even if it means trying to ostracise an entire demographic through demonising it.

lol

literally everything that you've said about my stance on religion is unintelligible from my actual stance on religion.

my treating religion with no respect does not mean that i don't treat religious people with respect. if you were a liberal and vehemently opposed conservative principles, does that mean that you don't treat conservative people with respect?

i am not satisfied with sitting back and "letting" religion fade away when i can take my part to convince others that secularism is the best way to understand the world. i will not, however, advocate any sort of action that results in religious people being treated lesser than irreligious people, and i tend to not evangelize secularism unless otherwise prompted to.

What? I was originally pointing out the things dondon was using to complain about religion, and saying that there are those exact same traits in other things like government and humanity. The person who made the first comparison is you, and I disagreed with it, because they're not comparable in that way.

the role of government is simply to make sure that a nation, people, organization, etc. runs properly. a government may employ ideology and claim moral authority, but it does not have to. government can exist independently of an ideology whereas religion is defined by its ideology.

i will claim that government is a net positive because we have evidence that anarchy results in instability and chaos (not to mention that in a power vacuum, power concentrates among particular individuals anyway). i will also claim that religion is a net negative because we know that morality is innate and not derived from a higher power and that secular organizations are just as, if not better, than religious organizations at charity (one you control for the sizes of these organizations).

Edited November 16, 2015 by dondon151

[Autumn]

lol

literally everything that you've said about my stance on religion is unintelligible from my actual stance on religion.

my treating religion with no respect does not mean that i don't treat religious people with respect. if you were a liberal and vehemently opposed conservative principles, does that mean that you don't treat conservative people with respect?

i am not satisfied with sitting back and "letting" religion fade away when i can take my part to convince others that secularism is the best way to understand the world. i will not, however, advocate any sort of action that results in religious people being treated lesser than irreligious people, and i tend to not evangelize secularism unless otherwise prompted to.

I was planning on just not replying anymore because of how tiring this was getting and how maka and my discussion was based on a misunderstanding. I can't really be bothered explaining why the assumptions I made were quite natural given the circumstance, but just take that as my opinion because this takes a bit too much energy to justify and it doesn't matter anyway.

But not replying to this is like running away, so I will. Now, what you said before about how all religious people have hard line stances and that you should ask them difficult questions and probe them to prove the conclusion you are predisposed to, isn't a sign of treating religious folks with respect. Talking about extremists when I defend religious moderates isn't a sign you treat religious folks with respect. Saying that they put on an inoffensive facade in order to attract people to their faith is not respect either, that's assuming what they think based on no evidence at all. Cherrypicking evidence against religion by bringing up the catholic church and ignoring every other charity that attracted people under the banner of religion, is also dishonest and disrespectful.

the role of government is simply to make sure that a nation, people, organization, etc. runs properly. a government may employ ideology and claim moral authority, but it does not have to. government can exist independently of an ideology whereas religion is defined by its ideology.

Except a religion can also act in ways that are not defined by it's ideology. 'Thou shalt not kill' yet the crusades happenned. Just like how a nation can say 'I'm protecting you!' while gassing thousands of jews.

evidence that anarchy results in instability and chaos

Where.

i will also claim that religion is a net negative because we know that morality is innate and not derived from a higher power and that secular organizations are just as, if not better, than religious organizations at charity (one you control for the sizes of these organizations).

2000 is a higher number than 1000, but 1000 is still a pretty big number, it is also net positive. And no we don't know that, there is no evidence proving that. It is just very very likely that it is the case- Even if it was, that alone doesn't justify that religion is net negative. By religion, just then, I basically just mean christianity. Because religions like buddhism has never started a single war. Anyway, even christiantiy itself cannot justify the atrocities it caused, so the atrocity point is kind of moot.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Autumn

[dondon151]

Now, what you said before about how all religious people have hard line stances and that you should ask them difficult questions and probe them to prove the conclusion you are predisposed to, isn't a sign of treating religious folks with respect. Talking about extremists when I defend religious moderates isn't a sign you treat religious folks with respect. Saying that they put on an inoffensive facade in order to attract people to their faith is not respect either, that's assuming what they think based on no evidence at all. Cherrypicking evidence against religion by bringing up the catholic church and ignoring every other charity that attracted people under the banner of religion, is also dishonest and disrespectful.

okay several things

first, you said that every church, temple, and charity that you've been to has been nothing but good advice. i responded to this with, well obviously you didn't ask the right questions. how is this in any way a sign of disrespect? is it not true that, for example, before you do something for an organization, you ask the right questions to figure out what that organization really does and what it really stands for? this is not disrespect; this is common sense. if i were to work for a catholic charity and that charity says "we do good things" but on further prompting adds "but we absolutely do not provide services to people who use contraception," then i'd be backing the fuck out of there.

second, you denigrated my practice of asking tough questions in discussions when my friends when you had absolutely no context about the discussions. one night out my very christian friend sincerely asked why being gay should be okay when her scripture said it wasn't. of course this would lead to a serious talk about biblical ethics; either that or i would be doing a disservice by not answering the question.

third, i am not assuming that faith is not based on evidence; i am asserting this, and faith is defined by its lack of basis on evidence.

fourth, i was not "cherrypicking" evidence when i compared catholic charity to secular charity. you are asking an impossible task of me, to scrutinize literally every religious charity and compare it to literally every secular charity. this is setting me up to fail, and that you reacted this way indicates to me that you are not open to being convinced regardless of the evidence presented.

2000 is a higher number than 1000, but 1000 is still a pretty big number, it is also net positive.

do you know what "net positive means"

it means positive relative to the next best option

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151