The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.
The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.
Kaycee says (12:06 AM):
whos' obama?
G'job ignoring the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and pretty much every war in history fought over religious grounds. Although I assume you're not being serious here.Originally Posted by Rengori
I agree there are worse problems than religion, but I think the world would have a lot less problems if religion didn't exist.
Actually, the "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s as a McCarthyist "protection" from "godless Communism" and WAS NOT included in the original Pledge that read "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was all about politics and not about the underlying faith of the Pledge.
Never knew that...
Not really, I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.G'job ignoring the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and pretty much every war in history fought over religious grounds. Although I assume you're not being serious here.
Kaycee says (12:06 AM):
whos' obama?
No, there isn't. I live in the South too, and I have been to all different kinds of churches of all different types of Christianity, and I have never once heard and ministers say that a certain group of people are going to hell. They really don't talk much about hell anymore at all. The sermons are usually about faith and virtues, not about hate. The crazy Christian extremists are pretty much only on the Internet and on T.V. these days, not preaching inside the churches.It’s a lot more than a few. Trust me, I live in the South.
You can't blame a group for a few bad eggs. I'm not ignorant enough to believe that all Christians are good people, because I know that's not true. But, I have respect for the good Christians, just like I have respect for the good Atheists, the good Buddists, ect. I don't judge a person by their faith, I judge them by their character.
Just to clarify, I never said I disrespected good Christians.
And maybe you're just in a more tolerant region of Louisiana than anywhere I live. I've lived in some pretty intolerant regions of the country. xD
I live in the south too, but I've never been to church in my life so I can't speak one way or the other.
Oh, so there is actually somebody else out there who knows that?? Thank god for that.Actually, the "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s as a McCarthyist "protection" from "godless Communism" and WAS NOT included in the original Pledge that read "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was all about politics and not about the underlying faith of the Pledge.
Er, I thought that was common knowledge by now.
This article is kind of absurd.
A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of things that aren't religion.
Religion itself is not a problem. However, the things that cause religion, the underlying moral premises of religion, are a problem, and, I believe, the cause of most of the problems in the world. Two of the underlying premises are irrationality and collectivism (which go hand-in-hand, so saying their relation is almost redundant).
One modern example of the relation between irrationality and collectivism is in Africa. AIDS is an epidemic there, killing many, and still many men refuse to wear condoms. I've heard people say "It's because their Catholic, and the Pope needs to..." No, the Pope doesn't need to do anything. The men in Africa need to use their own freakin' brains and do what's best for them, and rely on their own judgment instead of the judgment of some 80-year-old man living in comfort some thousands of miles away.
I haven't read most of this thread, but just to toss in my half a cent: You can't determine causality based on a correlational study. That is to say, you can't say "A has a positive relationship with B, therefore A causes B." It doesn't work like that, and those kinds of results aren't accepted in any scientific circle.
In order to determine causality, you'd have to do a true experiment in a controlled environment, which is impossible to do with that kind of theory.
And once again, I'll point out that saying something "can cause" something else is not the same as saying it "does" cause it. It's been pointed out four times now.
Well I said I didn't read most of the thread. xP
Though I still think that "can cause" is misleading. There is such a thing as too large of a sample size, and with a sample that large you could find a correlation between pretty much anything. There are way too many variables in that situation.
!!!!!!!!!!
Signature by rubah. I think.
"Can cause" is extremely misleading to the point that it shouldn't be used at all. Being beaten as a child "can cause" you to become a murderer, but 99% of people who were abused to some degree as a child don't become murderers.And once again, I'll point out that saying something "can cause" something else is not the same as saying it "does" cause it. It's been pointed out four times now.
And as Shlup said - association/correlation is different than causation. It's the same statistical mistake used by political idiots who say "video games cause violence." However, it's much more likely that violent kids will be more likely drawn to violent video games.
Back to this subject - instead of "religion causes violence" or "religion can cause violence", it should be "violent, irrational people will be more likely drawn to religion." Then, you should look at the reason violent people are more likely drawn to religion. It all boils down to irrationality; religion offers a contradiction, a non-objective view of reality. Once objectivity is thrown out the window, you allow for the justification of anything. Therefore, many violent people (say, abortion-clinic bombers, animal-testing center bombers, et cetera) actually feel their violence justified for some irrational reason, religion or not.
Posting Permissions
