Interesting piece on religion...

[wolveraptor]

Once you claim that in religion in general fosters child abuse, you need to be able to prove that for the majority of religions, not just a couple.

No one claimed that, you strawmanning asshole. People only claimed that fundamentalism (i.e. strict adherence to the sacred texts of a religion) in Abrahamic religion fosters child abuse. This is self-evident, as the Old Testament (for example) clearly supports stoning insolent children to death. A fundamentalist, who, by definition, follows the tenants of their scripture, would presumably follow similar, harsh corporeal punishments (though they're obviously limited by the laws of the country in which they live).

[Surlethe]

Oh, like those who take a fundamentalist attitude to "treat others as you'd like to be treated" or "hate the sin, not the sinner" and ignore most of the Old Testament entirely? You can't take a fundamentalist attitude to the entire Bible, it's too inconsistent.

Inconsistencies don't matter one whit; people can and do take the Bible literally regardless, so my point stands.

You need to be selective, in which case non-religious factors like culture take hold... and we end up with the final result that it's not religion which determines your behavior, it's the general close-mindedness and assholeness of the community.

And religion very nicely provides a description of why those communities are close-minded and assholish.

I know several very devout Christians who wouldn't hurt a fly, and of several religious communities with a very healthy attitude. If you want to generalize across all of Christianity, you need real studies.

Restating your point doesn't make it so. Why are studies necessary when we can look at the founding document? If anything, the burden of proof's on you to show that the religion has generally changed from being misogynistic, abusive, and violent in both rhetoric and deed.

[Civil War Man]

You need to be selective, in which case non-religious factors like culture take hold... and we end up with the final result that it's not religion which determines your behavior, it's the general close-mindedness and assholeness of the community.

In many cases, the religion is the culture. Even in the officially religiously neutral United States, there are communities where not being, for instance, a Baptist or a Mormon, or not believing in transubstantiation or Biblical creation will cause your own parents to disown you. They literally refuse to be your parent anymore because you do not believe exactly as they do. And in the types of communities where this tends to happen, there often is no one else who would consider what your parents did to be a bad decision, particularly if you are, for example, an atheist. You can't say, "Not all religious people do this, so it must be a result of American culture," because in this instance, the religion is their culture.

No, you only said that "roughly 95% of religious people", which still sounds like a huge exaggaration.

While I have not experienced anything close to my example above, I know many who get extremely uncomfortable when I even hint at being an atheist. And I live in one of the solidly democratic-voting American states. It may not be 95%, but it is still a very significant majority.

Which fundies? If I recall correctly, Utah, with a considerable Mormon majority, also had one of the highest rates of academic performance compared to the rest of the US (though I don't have a link to back that up right now, but I can dig it up if that's suspect). Or the Jews who tended to get wealthy and ended up prosecuted partially for that reason. Or the Protestant work ethic that some studies credit as the reason for the prosperity of some nations. Or...

Or how about the atheist lack of belief in the supernatural, which doesn't force them to either actively sabotage scientific progress or create a cognitive dissonance where they have to keep two aspects of their life completely separate in order to live soundly?

I mean, as long as we are using stereotypes here...

Stalin's purges are the first atheist equivalent for the Inquisition that comes to mind, the removal of unreliable elements and threats to your own power.

So for mass murders, we're currently at Christianity: Several hundred to several thousand, Atheism: 1

The Crusades were helped by religious propaganda, but so has the War on Iraq been helped by atheist propaganda.

Atheist propoganda helping Iraq? Didn't God tell W to attack? How about most atheists seeming to be more in favor of bringing the troops home ASAP?

Again, we're talking about people who just happened to be religious engaging in behavior that people in general tend to engage in. The Inquisitions are a particularly good example - they were created to purge heresies and other differing faiths because the different faiths weakened the Church's power. In Communist China and Russia, people who had ideologies that differed from the state's accepted could end up purged for the very same reason - yet nobody says "hey look, atheists killed all those who resisted their power and it was defended with atheistic reasons, I guess that means atheism is bad", while having no problem in saying exactly the same about religious people.

Yes, Communist China and Russia killed anyone who wasn't an atheist. Oh wait.

[Superman]

No, you only said that "roughly 95% of religious people", which still sounds like a huge exaggaration.

Thanks for demonstrating my point about the stupid. Jesus christ... You're so goddamned stupid you don't even see what I mean, and then you live up to my example. The humanity...

[Superman]

The Crusades were helped by religious propaganda, but so has the War on Iraq been helped by atheist propaganda.

And tell me he didn't actually say that before I fall on the floor laughing at this conspiracy theorist whack job.

This guy HAS to be a fundie.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that he chalks up Stalin's actions to atheism says it all. He's obviously a fundie idiot. Either that or he's the dumbest dipshit ever, and was completely fooled by fundie propaganda.

[Xuenay]

Okay, pause here. I'd written up half of a long reply already, but then decided to stop to clear up stuff first because people some express themselves ambigously. Now, if your opinion was that A) only the fundies are a problem and even of those, only part of the fundies are a problem, then we're in total agreement and there's no need to continue. If your opinion was that B) religion in general causes trouble and it's not limited to a small group of fundies, then chime up and I'll respond to your posts in depth.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, pause here. I'd written up half of a long reply already, but then decided to stop to clear up stuff first because people some express themselves ambigously. Now, if your opinion was that A) only the fundies are a problem and even of those, only part of the fundies are a problem, then we're in total agreement and there's no need to continue. If your opinion was that B) religion in general causes trouble and it's not limited to a small group of fundies, then chime up and I'll respond to your posts in depth.

Hey genius, what do you think causes fundies, if not religion? To say that religion in general is somehow absolved for creating the fundies that you agree to be a problem is idiotic.

Not all religious people become fundies. However, not all smokers die of lung cancer either, but that doesn't mean that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, nor does it mean that cigarettes aren't harmful.

[Xuenay]

Hey genius, what do you think causes fundies, if not religion? To say that religion in general is somehow absolved for creating the fundies that you agree to be a problem is idiotic.

Not all religious people become fundies. However, not all smokers die of lung cancer either, but that doesn't mean that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, nor does it mean that cigarettes aren't harmful.

My statement was not "religion does not cause fundies", it was "it cannot be said with certainty that all religion has more adverse sides than beneficial, and furthermore the people suspectible to becoming fundamentalists would probably have had a good chance of becoming close-minded jerks through some other ideology anyway".

[Darth Wong]

My statement was not "religion does not cause fundies", it was "it cannot be said with certainty that all religion has more adverse sides than beneficial

Fuck off with this "all religion" bullshit. You know perfectly well that we're talking about the Abrahamic religions in particular. No one is saying that humanist fundies are running around out there somewhere.

and furthermore the people suspectible to becoming fundamentalists would probably have had a good chance of becoming close-minded jerks through some other ideology anyway".

And you have some evidence for this completely unfounded speculation?

[DPDarkPrimus]

But once again, I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad, instead of backing their words with anecdote and examples from isolated movements.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiousity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies".

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates- the more religious the population, the higher the rates. There are also correlations found between religiousity and higher rates of abortion, and more teenage mothers, than those societies that are more secularized.

Should I consider your claims retracted?

[Glocksman]

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates

Correlation doesn't equal causation.
My belief is that the US's comparative lack of a social welfare net, history of racial conflict and individualism have more to do with higher homicide rates than the depth of religious belief does.
While the study is interesting, it really doesn't prove much either way as degree of religious belief is hardly the only significant difference between the US and other first world countries.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I agree with the homocide rates, but would you agree that religiosity is a factor in abortion rates and teen pregnancy?

[Glocksman]

I agree with the homocide rates, but would you agree that religiosity is a factor in abortion rates and teen pregnancy?

I agree that it is a contributing factor, but not the sole reason, as there are plenty of other differences between the US and the rest of the first world that would exacerbate the US rates just as much if not more than the religion factor.

[Darth Wong]

Who gives a shit if it's the sole reason? Do the words "red herring" come to mind? The proposition that something is harmful is not refuted by pointing out that there are other things which are also harmful.

[Lusankya]

Which fundies? If I recall correctly, Utah, with a considerable Mormon majority, also had one of the highest rates of academic performance compared to the rest of the US (though I don't have a link to back that up right now, but I can dig it up if that's suspect).

How about Japan, which has the highest rate of atheism out of the g8 nations, but the lowest crime rate and one of the highest rates of acedemic performance in the world?

Or America, for that matter, which has the highest rate of Christianity of the g8 nations, but the highest crime rate?

Perhaps we should draw a correlation between Christianity and crime here.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Glocksman]

Who gives a shit if it's the sole reason? Do the words "red herring" come to mind? The proposition that something is harmful is not refuted by pointing out that there are other things which are also harmful.

I'm sorry if you got the idea that I'm trying to refute or deny the proposition that religion can be harmful.
That wasn't my intent, as any idiot can see the relationships between religious taboos WRT sex and reproduction affecting how teens learn about sex and how to take proper precautions before engaging in sex and how such beliefs affect GLBT teens who are trying to come to grips with their sexuality while dealing with the disapproval of a large part of society at the same time.

It's just the impression I got from a quick read of the essay was that the author ignored other contributing factors to the abovementioned problems.

[wolveraptor]

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates

Correlation doesn't equal causation.
My belief is that the US's comparative lack of a social welfare net, history of racial conflict and individualism have more to do with higher homicide rates than the depth of religious belief does.
While the study is interesting, it really doesn't prove much either way as degree of religious belief is hardly the only significant difference between the US and other first world countries.

We should remember that none of the links he provided showed a causation either.

[Glocksman]

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates

Correlation doesn't equal causation.
My belief is that the US's comparative lack of a social welfare net, history of racial conflict and individualism have more to do with higher homicide rates than the depth of religious belief does.
While the study is interesting, it really doesn't prove much either way as degree of religious belief is hardly the only significant difference between the US and other first world countries.

We should remember that none of the links he provided showed a causation either.

When I say 'quick read', translate that as 'skimmed'.
In other words, I didn't pay sufficient attention to this:

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

[wolveraptor]

I think you may have misunderstood me. By "he" I meant "Xuenay". Pronoun antecedents are a bitch. None of Xuenay's links show lower substance abuse rates (for example) stemming from religiosity.

[Xuenay]

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiousity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies".

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates- the more religious the population, the higher the rates. There are also correlations found between religiousity and higher rates of abortion, and more teenage mothers, than those societies that are more secularized.

Should I consider your claims retracted?

Hmm... at least partially, yes. While it's still no evidence of causation, and partially contradictory with the studies I linked to earlier, it is still something. I'll consider this, as well as the other things said in this thread. My thanks.

I'll make a few more comments, since it appears stuff that I said was seriously misunderstood.

Stalin's purges are the first atheist equivalent for the Inquisition that comes to mind, the removal of unreliable elements and threats to your own power.

Don't be a fucking idiot. Stalinism was no more motivated by atheism than it was by mathematics. The fact that communism was officially atheist means nothing more than the fact that it recognized the principle of addition and subtraction.

My point exactly.

Stalin - and totalitarians in general - destroyed people they perceived as threatening, since they perceived them as threats to their own power. It had much less to do with ideology than a desire to stay in power. This is commonly accepted.

Yet when the Church did exactly the same things, suddenly it gets blamed on religion (ideology), not on a simple desire to stay in power, as if people had magically gotten much more eager to maintain their positions of power after the Industrial Revolution. It's like saying sure, these days dictators can kill anyone with different ideologies because they are frightened of those ideologies spreading and threatening the official state dogma, but in the Middle Ages people were much more enlightened and noble and only killed people because their religion twisted them. Uhh, right.

I was not saying that Stalin killed people because he was atheist, I was saying his ideology had nothing to do with the underlying reasons of the purges, just as religion had nothing to do with the underlying reasons for the Inquisition.

Am I being more clear now?

The Crusades were helped by religious propaganda, but so has the War on Iraq been helped by atheist propaganda.

And tell me he didn't actually say that before I fall on the floor laughing at this conspiracy theorist whack job.

"Atheist" as an adjective describing the content, not to imply an Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) behind it. All speech either uses religious reasoning or it doesn't. It's atheist, religious, or somewhere in between.

Now, as I'm not an American, I don't know the exact tone of the stuff that was used to sell the war in the States, but what got filtered here was mostly pretty atheistic (read: with an absence of religious reasoning). Saddam has WMDs. He oppresses his people. He had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. Etc.

As before, my point was not to say that this is somehow a bad mark towards atheism, just as propaganda with religious reasoning in it isn't a bad mark towards religion. My point was that propaganda is propaganda. If you want to sell a war, you convince your people to support it using whatever they happen to consider important. If that happens to be religion, then it's religion, and if it happens to WMDs, then it's WMDs. Blaming religion for the Crusades makes as much sense at blaming a desire for liberty and a wish to live free from terrorist attacks for the War on Iraq - that is, none.

[Superman]

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiousity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies".

Results show a direct correlation between religiousity and homocide rates- the more religious the population, the higher the rates. There are also correlations found between religiousity and higher rates of abortion, and more teenage mothers, than those societies that are more secularized.

Should I consider your claims retracted?

Hmm... at least partially, yes. While it's still no evidence of causation, and partially contradictory with the studies I linked to earlier, it is still something. I'll consider this, as well as the other things said in this thread. My thanks.

I'll make a few more comments, since it appears stuff that I said was seriously misunderstood.

Stalin's purges are the first atheist equivalent for the Inquisition that comes to mind, the removal of unreliable elements and threats to your own power.

Don't be a fucking idiot. Stalinism was no more motivated by atheism than it was by mathematics. The fact that communism was officially atheist means nothing more than the fact that it recognized the principle of addition and subtraction.

My point exactly.

Stalin - and totalitarians in general - destroyed people they perceived as threatening, since they perceived them as threats to their own power. It had much less to do with ideology than a desire to stay in power. This is commonly accepted.

Yet when the Church did exactly the same things, suddenly it gets blamed on religion (ideology), not on a simple desire to stay in power, as if people had magically gotten much more eager to maintain their positions of power after the Industrial Revolution. It's like saying sure, these days dictators can kill anyone with different ideologies because they are frightened of those ideologies spreading and threatening the official state dogma, but in the Middle Ages people were much more enlightened and noble and only killed people because their religion twisted them. Uhh, right.

I was not saying that Stalin killed people because he was atheist, I was saying his ideology had nothing to do with the underlying reasons of the purges, just as religion had nothing to do with the underlying reasons for the Inquisition.

Am I being more clear now?

The Crusades were helped by religious propaganda, but so has the War on Iraq been helped by atheist propaganda.

And tell me he didn't actually say that before I fall on the floor laughing at this conspiracy theorist whack job.

"Atheist" as an adjective describing the content, not to imply an Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) behind it. All speech either uses religious reasoning or it doesn't. It's atheist, religious, or somewhere in between.

Now, as I'm not an American, I don't know the exact tone of the stuff that was used to sell the war in the States, but what got filtered here was mostly pretty atheistic (read: with an absence of religious reasoning). Saddam has WMDs. He oppresses his people. He had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. Etc.

As before, my point was not to say that this is somehow a bad mark towards atheism, just as propaganda with religious reasoning in it isn't a bad mark towards religion. My point was that propaganda is propaganda. If you want to sell a war, you convince your people to support it using whatever they happen to consider important. If that happens to be religion, then it's religion, and if it happens to WMDs, then it's WMDs. Blaming religion for the Crusades makes as much sense at blaming a desire for liberty and a wish to live free from terrorist attacks for the War on Iraq - that is, none.

Holy shit. Why don't you just change the entire length of the football field, since you're so good at moving goal posts.

You're full of shit.

[Superman]

Oops, I meant to *snip* that.

[Xuenay]

And what I said before is inconsistent with what I said now... how?

[Darth Wong]

My point exactly.

Wrong. The religions in question directly advocate the things we're accusing it of. Atheism advocates nothing. I pointed this out several times already and you've ignored it, asshole.

Stalin - and totalitarians in general - destroyed people they perceived as threatening, since they perceived them as threats to their own power. It had much less to do with ideology than a desire to stay in power. This is commonly accepted.

Yet when the Church did exactly the same things, suddenly it gets blamed on religion (ideology), not on a simple desire to stay in power, as if people had magically gotten much more eager to maintain their positions of power after the Industrial Revolution.

Yes, moron. Because Jerusalem has been viciously fought over for more than a thousand years and it has no real tactical or strategic value to anyone. Its only particular value is religious. Yet you pretend that all of this fighting, the multiple attempts to take and retake the so-called "Holy City", have all been motivated by simple greed and lust for power, and nothing else. Why the fuck are people fighting over that worthless pile of broken-down shit if not for its revered religious status?

You have never satisfactorily answered the point that many of the problems we accuse religion of are directly promoted in the "scriptures" that its adherents are told to worship. You merely assume that this is an insignificant factor, and that every religious atrocity in history has been motivated by purely secular interests with not a shred of reasoning whatsoever other than your personal say-so.