Forums → WEPR → [necro] The overall effect of religion on the world
| 126 | 35123 |
- 126 Replies
The evidence even from those here seem to suggest most aren't willing to bend.
It's rare to see immediate effects from debates. If you see a theist and they support something stupid, you can't change their mind by pointing out flaws in their way of thinking.
If for some reason you can't sway them, then you need to take a different approach to the problem. There's no easy solution, but trying to fight religion as a whole is the worst.
There are religious wars going on left and right, terrorism is at it's peak
A few people take their religion so serious that they perform acts of terrorism simply because someone else mentioned their god or prophet. This is unfortunate.
If I wanted everything that's abused to be banned, we wouldn't have video games, alcohol, internet, guns, knives, so on and so on.
I honestly don't see how converting Christians to atheism will solve the problem with terrorism when the problem isn't with Christians but a different religious group all together.
All we can do is cope in this situation and continue living out lives. If there never was religion, we probably wouldn't have this particular problem. However, religion exists and arguing about how religion is a problem won't change the fact that there is religion and there are radicals.
But they have one of the "ositive things" you mentioned: A feeling that they belong and a social gathering. It does not make street gangs a good thing.
You're busting my balls here. You're clearly missing the point. Yes, one positive when it comes to gangs is a feeling of acceptance, however it comes with even more wrongs.
Most Christian groups aren't trading illegal drugs, shooting up heroin, robbing stores, raping women, so on, and so on. You are merely finding vague similarities between two different groups, one that has a positive influence and is influenced by religion, and one that has a negative influence and is influenced by one's nature to be territorial or by drugs or money.
When I say togetherness, you know what I'm talking about. Religion is a good way for people to be around others rather than sitting alone at home. Once again, I know it will be said, that there are other ways people can gather, but that's not the point, because I'm not arguing that you need religion but that religion does have positive effects.
The rest of your argument seems to be mainly based on "Who cares about the facts?". It may not apply to the average man that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, it applies to scientist. It may not effect you now, but it may effect you later in life or your children grand children ect. Lets say the same example I gave, the earth and the sun. It would be useful in interplanetary travel for the planets to be aligned, and it would be much harder for an average businessman to calculate if everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Christianity is not slowing the advancement of planetary travel. Don't feed me these fallacies.
Yes, religion MAY effect your children. I can raise my child how I damn feel like it. Yes, that belief may hurt them, but you can't exterminate something that may hurt them. In fact, it may hurt them to raise them as whiny atheists. It may harm them to give them chocolate only to find out later in life they are allergic.
I don't like playing with may and might as an excuse to exterminate something.
Lets say the same example I gave, the earth and the sun. It would be useful in interplanetary travel for the planets to be aligned, and it would be much harder for an average businessman to calculate if everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Do you understand that no matter how big religion gets, it never effects what is considered to be scientific fact? Sure, some people may call religious events as facts when they are far from fact, but in the science community, religion doesn't effect anything. Even if a majority of theists believed the sun revolved around the Earth, NASA and private organizations working on space travel would still use data and science and they would be forced to accept that the earth revolved around the sun.
Like I said, I'm not a scientist, so it won't make a difference in the world if I believe in creationism over evolution, or even if I believed the world was flat. If I have no scientific basis, experts will merely ignore me.
You're taking the negatives of religion and elevating them to an unrealistic height and saying "this might happen."
If someone says the sun revolves around the earth, then you will have to debate them on it. If they use religion to back their point, all you can do is move on.
The only sciences that religion currently has a hold on are those involving stem cell research, cloning, and other forms of science that is highly debating when it comes to morality from both theists and atheists.
Oil and religion. And of course don't forget all the extremist with the bombs strapped to there back.
Yeah, because EVERY Christian you seeing walking on the streets is a crazy terrorist ready to fuck shit up. You're taking what one minor group does and elevating it as if it's common between all theists. Most theists don't strap bombs to their backs.
THEY ARE NOT NEEDED TO MAKE CHARITIES! Think Non belief Relief.
Of course you don't need religion to start a charity. The same goes for war. You don't need religion to start a war or a terrorist act.
Every time there's a negative, you say it's because of religion. Every time you see a positive, you say it would have happened anyway even if there wasn't religion.
Science is a pursuit based off basic human curiosity. Religion is based off the basic human need to be loved. Clearly one is much more important than the other.
Some people seek the truth while others seek acceptance. Why not allow people to feel accepted at the cost of truth if they aren't causing any harm? Some people seek knowledge, while others seek a good life. Why not have both? Because some people simply don't care if they evolved from a former animal or if the world is round.
You're killing a whole heard of cattle for one sick calf.
I am stating that street gangs can give the same feelings, yet you would not call them positive. My local church may not have murdered anyone, but no one that they dislike lives in the aria. Catholic priests are famous for ****. Many churches encourage attacking gays and such.
Encouraging the attack on gays and not supporting gays are two entirely different things.
Many churches preach that homosexuality is wrong. If there is a homosexual, they are generally ignored. I know a lot of theists, some of them against homosexuals. However, none of them attack homosexuals or protest against their rights. Most Christians may talk about how wrong homosexuality is, but they ignore homosexuals or change their act when they talk to homosexuals in person and keep their mouth shut.
However, people do speak out against gays. This is unfortunate, but understand that you also have atheists who speak out against gays as well. You don't need religion to be against a sex, race, lifestyle, or sexual preference.
So you would give millions, if not billions, of lives so you could have a warm fuzzy feeling?
I would never give up my guns. Many people have been killed by them, but I won't give up my guns.
So yes, I would not give up a religion, ONE THAT I AM NOT ABUSING, simply because some other nut case is abusing it. That's a logical fallacy in itself.
That most people have never heard of. The Red Cross is much, much more effective. Giving these people hope, false or not, is just as important as aid.
To be fair, you don't need religion to help the sick. You don't need religion to start a charity or anything of the sort.
But if a charity, founded on religion, is formed, then great! There's a positive for religion, regardless if the religion part was required or not.
Yep. Just your horribly biased opinion.
Actually the link you provided was terribly biased...
I can't complain though. The site you linked announces that they are not affiliated with religion as if they are trying to spread atheism in the same way some charities announce they are affiliated with a religion as a way to convert people into believers.
I can understand not wanting to donate to religious charities, but that sounds like something that should be left in the description as extra information, not the main draw to the site. Rather than being "Non-believers charity", why not just "charity"?
Charities should not thrive off the point that they are or are not religious. But if that's the charity you wish to donate to, then I won't stop you.
Keeping with the old habits that killed millions of innocents in the name of Christianity? And that still kills today?
That's funny, because most Christians aren't killing millions of people.
If you have a single man who kills 20 Billion people in the name of God, then you can say religion killed 20 Billion people, even though it was merely a single man who killed them, or .00001 of all theists. Just keep that in mind.