The Harm of Belief in God

[Zinegata]

I have then shown that China's "prosperity" is somewhat mythical. There have been massive rebellions that have killed millions.

Personally, I find America's prosperity to be somewhat mythical, because it went through the Civil War and the Great Depression. Therefore, American society is non-prosperous and non-ethical. QED.

Actually, it's a good thing you used the same stupid argument as Metahive. Because it just strengthens my point.

You claim that America has mythical prosperity, just like China. Therefore, both actually just enjoy the same level of prosperity.

In short, despite the fact that America is "superstitious", it was just as good at failing to achieve prosperity as China. Therefore, you have shot yourself in the foot and invalidated your own initial argument, even without having me to disprove the insane notion that China is a largely non-superstitious country.

My suggestion? Know what you're actually talking about, instead of talking out of your ass to score brownie points among the "Atheism rules!" crowd.

Belief in science does not shield you from stupidity.

Stupidity mixed with belief in science is just belief in pseudoscience.

[ray245]

I have then shown that China's "prosperity" is somewhat mythical. There have been massive rebellions that have killed millions.

Personally, I find America's prosperity to be somewhat mythical, because it went through the Civil War and the Great Depression. Therefore, American society is non-prosperous and non-ethical. QED.

Actually, it's a good thing you used the same stupid argument as Metahive. Because it just strengthens my point.

You claim that America has mythical prosperity, just like China. Therefore, both actually just enjoy the same level of prosperity.

In short, despite the fact that America is "superstitious", it was just as good at failing to achieve prosperity as China. Therefore, you have shot yourself in the foot and invalidated your own initial argument, even without having me to disprove the insane notion that China is a largely non-superstitious country.

My suggestion? Know what you're actually talking about, instead of talking out of your ass to score brownie points among the "Atheism rules!" crowd.

Belief in science does not shield you from stupidity.

Stupidity mixed with belief in science is just belief in pseudoscience.

Did you even bother to read her argument? She is saying that a nation without major religious influence can be just as prosperous as a nation that is heavily influenced by religion.

[Zinegata]

Did you even bother to read her argument? She is saying that a nation without major religious influence can be just as prosperous as a nation that is heavily influenced by religion.

Did you ever read mine? Or her actual initial post?

Lusanka made the incorrect claim that Chinese are not highly superstitious, and that China has maintained relative peace and prosperity for thousands of years.

I refuted this by showing many aspects of Chinese culture that Westerners often do not see. And then I showed that China is not some country in relative stasis for thousands of years. It's been marred by rebellions - some of which rival WW1 in death count.

This "nation without major religious influence" therefore, does not exist. Unless you're referring to organized religion. But she didn't use the term organized religion. If you actually read what she wrote, she used the term superstition.

[Lusankya]

I'll take your evasion of the question "You're not really Chinese" as confirmation that you really are a non-Chinese talking out of his ass.

That's ok. I already took your admission that your family is in the Philippines as a confirmation that you've never been to mainland China, and you're just some wannabe ABC talking out his arse. You'd better work on your English if you want any of your kids to become a real ABC, however, because you are not displaying very good reading skills here. Luckily for you, I'm not racist and will not dismiss your arguments based solely on your ethnicity, however I will dismiss them based on the fact that you are an idiot.

Also, you're employing misdirection. Again, the main point is neither has an organization that actively shows them as superstitious stupid people. Not whether or not Confucionism is "technically" a religion.

Confucianism is a social philosophy much like Marxism. On its own, it is agnostic (Confucius himself claimed to be agnostic with regards to the existence of the supernatural).

Of course, if you had bothered to think your line of reasoning through, you would come to the realisation that the fact that no Chinese religion managed to create a monopoly on religion the way the RCC did in Western Europe implies that religion never managed to be as powerful in China as it was in the West.

You cite no sources, and do not even have anecdotes. You instead try to insult my relatives. That's called being scum.

I thought it was common knowledge that about 60% of Chinese people were noneligious. From my understanding of Chinese history, this is not a particularly unusual number. You are also still failing to make a distinction between people believing in a religion, people practising a religion (Chinese people are quite happy to do the second without doing the first, because they think "it's funny").

Also, read board policies.

False assertions without even anecdotes to support it. Again, do you deny that Chinese invented mystical concepts like Feng Shui (and Yin & Yang, and Chi), or do Chinese have numerous "spirits" they try to placate?

You are the only one trying to claim that anyone ever said that China had no religion or superstition...

Whether it's internal or external aggression, killing millions of people does not make a society prosperous, nor ethical.

So you're still claiming then, that no society ever is prosperous or ethical. If you're going to continue with this stupid line of argument, it seems that there is as much point in arguing with you as there is with a nihilist or a semantics whore, and I would have a lot more fun. Or are you really asking me to amend my statement to "Chinese society is no more unethical than any other society on Earth", which strikes me as pointless nitpicking.

Stop making up shit about people you've never met.

You're the only one doing that at the moment.

Word of advice: straw is a very good material for building scarecrows, but not so good for building houses.

You claim that America has mythical prosperity, just like China. Therefore, both actually just enjoy the same level of prosperity.

Are you a dwarf or something? I didn't think pitched my point so high that it'd actually go sailing that far over your head.

The point I made was that..

Actually, I'm not going to bother. I just reread your post, and it's so full of stupidity that I don't think I could argue against it without throwing up all over my keyboard. I hope you live on one of the crappy islands in your overpopulated-with-more-babies-coming-out-every-day Catlick country, and that you get kidnapped by militias.

[Formless]

No she's not. Stop lying.

An acusation of lying! Oh, me oh my. What will I ever do. I hope you are willing to prove that I intentionally tried to claim something that I knew ahead of time to be untrue?

Of course you aren't, because as we've already established all you want to do in this thread is assert your own moral superiority even if it requires you to put words into other people's mouths. Blatantly.

Her whole argument is that superstition (note: SUPERSTITION, NOT RELIGION) serves an evolutionary purpose, and therefor is a moral good. This rests on the implied premise (or perhaps misunderstanding, though after its been explained this many times I doubt its just a misunderstanding) that evolution designs creatures like a human designer, and that its designs are unquestionable and good. Has she stated it explicitly? No, but then stupidity rarely is that obvious. It would be a lot easier to root out if it were otherwise.

She's just applying natural selection to what is widely seen as a mental, as opposed to genetic trait.

Which, while not entirely in line with Darwin's theory, has some merit. Again: Why would a mental trait persist through several generations of humans if it serves no useful purpose?

Unsurprisingly you also seem to believe the misconception that evolution has purpose. Did it ever occur to you that this argument may in fact have been addressed? Again, more than 90% of the human genome does absolutely nothing. As long as a trait doesn't actively harm a specie's fitness, it will continue to persist in the gene pool. Also, as long as a trait improves a species fitness, it doesn't have to be an objectively good design to spread throughout the gene pool and persist. And lastly, it only has to improve the species fitness in the environment it is in right now in order for these things to happen. It may turn out to be a horrible design later when said environment changes-- in fact, this is one of the very mechanisms that causes evolutionary progress in the first place!

Do your research before trying to argue about evolution.

Says the person who claim that Maj was trying to say Evolution = An Actual God.

No, I'm saying that that is how her arguments effectively treat evolution. Once again you can't seem to touch anything but straw.

During the Second World War, Nazi scientists live humans for a series of medical experiments. The Nazi experiments resulted in valuable data in the field of medicine. For instance, by immersing a live victim in a pool of ice-cold water, the Nazis killed several hundred Jews but gathered vital data on how hypothermia affects and kills the body. This data remains in use to this day.

So again, stop the bullshit. Just because you worship science doesn't give you the right to be an intolerant asshat.

1) citation needed

2) Was that motivated by science? Or was it because the Nazi's were a well known bunch of psychopaths? You are claiming the former, but all evidence I am aware of says the latter.

3) you realize that most of the Nazi's experiments were of no scientific value at all, right?

This bullshit isn't new. Every religious person and there dog has been trying to paint the Nazi's as some kind of secular evil for decades, and for decades the facts have had to be shoved down people's throats that the Nazi's were in fact doing it for religious reasons and that it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

I don't give a damn what you believe. What I am pointing out is that regardless of your beliefs, you are being an ass.

"Get your fill of science, sci-fi, and MOCKERY OF STUPID PEOPLE."

For fucks sake, learn. English.

Also, I like how you claim I am the ass when you are the one trying to claim I'm intolerant because of arguments I never made, AND tried to pull the "help help, I'm being oppressed" card when I am the one who is in a discriminated minority and you aren't.

Misdirection. Completely failed to refute that Mein Kampf was, in fact, the product of Germany's defeat in WW1 as opposed to religious belief.

Actually, the thing you are missing is the fact that the Holocaust actually happened. That means that the German people actually believed in Hitler's cause, and were willing to carry out his plans to the letter. We KNOW that anti-semitism was the reason the Jews were the scapegoat of choice (along with Gypsies and a few other minorites) and we KNOW that this is historically because of the religious and racial status of the Jews in Germany and to a larger extent Europe at large. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your self-righteous apologistic ranting? Gotta defend the faith!

Bzzzt. Misidirection again. You did not say "it played a role". You said it was a "point blank religiously motivated event". I showed alternate motivations. You did not refute them. Again.

Because again, believing in science doesn't mean you're not fucking stupid.

As you keep proving with every word that comes out of your mouth. Because frankly, every second of this conversation you are either ignoring multiple posts that contradict your assertions about me, or outright putting words in my mouth like a dishonest little shit. I said this many, many times elsewhere when people (like Simon_Jester) brought this to my attention, but instead you nitpick the one example that even slightly looks like a contradiction of my stance! The fact remains: the church mandated the Crusades. A religious authority caused a war simply by asking people to fight who may or may not have had other motivations. And hey, get this! You haven't shown any evidence for those motivations besides your own say so! I'll be generous here: I'll grant that some of the crusaders probably had personal, non-religious reasons for participating in the Crusades. You will now show me evidence that this was the prevailing trend, or concede the point. This is not a request, this is me invoking the rules of the board.

Your exact words were "The Inquisition was mandated by the fucking Catholic Church."

I responded by pointing out that it wasn't actually the Catholic Church that implemented the Inquisition. National governments did. And those that did implement them had often had state interests that coincided with these Inquisitions.

Emphasis added. Read your own goddamn words, idiot. There is a difference between mandating a policy and implementing it. The Church mandated the Inquisitions, that is not in dispute by any reputable historian I know of. Furthermore, you again missed the fact that your own evidence indicates those national governments were motivated by religious intolerance! You are so utterly self deluded its amazing. You should be studied in the name of science.

Yes it does. It proves that you're only interested in shouting "Religion is evil", regardless of evidence.

Bzzt. Wrong, asshole. I've given numerous examples of religion and superstition doing harm. You have flat ignored most of them, such as the persecution of Galleleo and other scientists by the RCC, homeopathic medicine in the modern day, the Intelligent Design movement, general retardation of the sciences and intellectual activity during the Dark Ages, the extermination of the Native Americans, slavery, etc.. I can list plenty more examples as well:

Witch burnings: extremely well documented. An example of religious belief coinciding with local superstitions to create something so obviously harmful the linguistic cliche` "witch hunt" is used to this day.

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria and other centers of knowledge following Rome's adoption of Christianity as its state religion: though arguably a prelude to the already mentioned stagnation of intellectualism during the Dark Ages, its notable for the sheer amount of knowledge we will never regain from that event.

Japan's warcrimes and general involvement in WWII: yes, I can find examples that aren't christian in case you haven't noticed. Some time before the war Imperial Japan officially made Shinto its state religion, which it used as part of its indoctrination strategy for the country.

As already mentioned, the Cast system in India. You know Ghandi? Nice guy, right? Well, not so fast. The Cast system is so entrenched into the culture of India that even though he thought Untouchables were mistreated and deserved better, even he never actually thought to question the doctrines that lead to that situation. And so it continues to this day that for entirely religious reasons, some people in India are simply not allowed to rise above the poverty level.

Scientology. Obvious, really, but a good example of how lack of skepticism and misplaced trust of religion can lead you to getting swindled, or worse.

Alex Jones. A good example of "worse". On this list for the same reason as Scientology.

Aum Shinrykio. Japanese cult. Was influenced by a weird mix of Bhuddist, Shinto, and Christian beliefs. Most notable for being the classic "doomsday" cult: so committed to the idea that the world would end by the year 2000 they actually decided to make their own WMD's to make sure of it! The result: the infamous Tokyo Subway Gas attack.

Continued persecution of homosexuals.

The RCC's continued stance on birth control and HIV. The idea that condoms don't help you avoid infection or that they make it worse is a flat out lie, and has a very real and measurable effect on the health of the average African.

Need I say more, or do you get it yet? You can't deny that Religion has massively effected the world in a negative way or continues to do so, and its not all because of extremists. Even those examples that are extreme like the three cults I mention cannot simply be dismissed because you don't like it or even because they are rare on the grand scheme of things. Someone who has been defrauded by Scientology or inhaled Sarin in Tokyo really couldn't care less what you think or that their victimizers were the exception to the rule, the damage to their livelihoods is no less real. To deny that is morally bankrupt by any standard I can think of.

[Zinegata]

That's ok. I already took your admission that your family is in the Philippines as a confirmation that you've never been to mainland China

Nope, I never claimed to have ever been to mainland China. That's why I cited newly-arrived immigrants from the mainland who arrived from the Philippines. I'm not a dishonest person who deliberately witholds facts that do not support my own arguments.

Also, again, more personal attacks? Please. Your argument is shit. That's why you resort to personal attacks.

Confucianism is a social philosophy much like Marxism. On its own, it is agnostic (Confucius himself claimed to be agnostic with regards to the existence of the supernatural).

First of all, not the issue: Because again my main point is that they don't have an organized body like the Catholic Church doing superstitious shit in the name of all those who do Confucionism.

Secondly, Confucianism does, in fact, have elements such as ancestral worship and rituals. There's a current and lively debate on whether or not it's a religion. That you insist it's only a social philosophy demonstrates clear irrational thinking. You reject evidence that does not fit your argument, as opposed to acknowledging evidence to find the truth.

Of course, if you had bothered to think your line of reasoning through, you would come to the realisation that the fact that no Chinese religion managed to create a monopoly on religion the way the RCC did in Western Europe implies that religion never managed to be as powerful in China as it was in the West.

I have already said that there is no centralized organized religion in China. So again, trying to insult me for stuff I already said shows only one thing:

You are again deliberately ignoring key facts just to prove that you're "right".

I thought it was common knowledge that about 60% of Chinese people were noneligious. From my understanding of Chinese history, this is not a particularly unusual number. You are also still failing to make a distinction between people believing in a religion, people practising a religion (Chinese people are quite happy to do the second without doing the first, because they think "it's funny").

And how does that contradict my statement that "Chinese don't have to deal with a Catholic Church that does superstitious shit in their name", how?

*ahem* Let me post again what you originally said:

It is worth noting that Chinese society, while not being completely free from religion or superstition, has never had religion or superstition as a main driving force in its government or culture. As early as Confucius, superstition was considered to be very much a lower-class thing. Societal views on ethics were influenced by various schools of philosophy, rather than the teachings of any religion

What you're now trying to do, is again to engage in misdirection. You made a stupid argument. You claim that superstition played very little into the lives of ordinary Chinese. I refuted this, while at the same time acknowledging China had no large organized Church like in the West.

So no, I'm not gonna play any more games with you. I cited instances where Chinese showed massive levels of superstition. You "counter-arguments" boiled down to "Your relatives are fat!"

And now, you're saying blatant lies about what I said.

Excuse me, but clearly, there's no value in continuing a discussion with someone who has no intellectual integrity at all.

[Zinegata]

An acusation of lying!

I don't need to accuse. Again:

Maj said: "Oddly enough, it's the people arguing against superstition who have largely come up with reasons why it was necessary at some point in human development."

Formless replied: "Which, by the way, strikes me as idolatry. Last I checked your world view considers that a sin. "

Again, how you can construe Maj's statement as idolatry is beyond me. Except that you, in fact, are just filled with hatred.

Hatred is never justifiable, even if you're an atheist, against a person who demonstrates no hatred.

I don't need to accuse. The truth is simple: You were a jackass. And I therefore ignore all of your petty attempts to absolve yourself of this shitty behavior.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: that was supposed to read "Jim Jones", not Alex Jones. As in, the guy who created the cult that forever cemented the phrase "drinking the koolaid" as an epithet.

[Metahive]

Nope, this is what's called taking what I said out of context. Again.

Clearly, your point is not to debate, but to just snipe. I'll ignore your bullshit now.

If with sniping you mean shooting your incredibly misinformed BS, like how Taping Tianguo erupted just over superstition, down then sniping it is. Also stop crying about "CONTAYKST!" It's not a magical word that saves bullcrap from getting dismantled, a foolish belief by many a biblical apologist (are you such as well?). You clearly stated that China can't be called a prosperous nation because it had at several points of history suffered through internal strife. Well, reductio ad absurdum is a valid counter to that.

By the way, come and tell me about chinese superstition. I am in China right now and not for the first time. Go on, give that armchair expertise some workout.

[Zinegata]

Nope, this is what's called taking what I said out of context. Again.

Clearly, your point is not to debate, but to just snipe. I'll ignore your bullshit now.

If with sniping you mean shooting your incredibly misinformed BS, like how Taping Tianguo erupted just over superstition, down then sniping it is. Also stop crying about "CONTAYKST!" It's not a magical word that saves bullcrap from getting dismantled, a foolish belief by many a biblical apologist (are you such as well?). You clearly stated that China can't be called a prosperous nation because it had at several points of history suffered through internal strife. Well, reductio ad absurdum is a valid counter to that.

By the way, come and tell me about chinese superstition. I am in China right now and not for the first time. Go on, give that armchair expertise some workout.

Again, I'm not even remotely denying that you are correct that the Taiping rebellion was mostly about the age-old "Kill Evil Foreigners!" rationale. That's like, the rationale behind the Ming, Han, and probably a couple of other dynasties.

So again, if that's what's driving you nuts, let me spell it out again for you: Yes, the Taiping rebellion was probably mainly caused by political reasons. The religious one was a subtext. I have not denied this. You are right. Do your happy dance.

It's also totally irrelevant. Again, do you deny that most Chinese have little shrines dedicated to stuff like prosperity and good health? Does that not contitute superstition? You're in China. So answer the question then.

[Formless]

Maj said: "Oddly enough, it's the people arguing against superstition who have largely come up with reasons why it was necessary at some point in human development."

Formless replied: "Which, by the way, strikes me as idolatry. Last I checked your world view considers that a sin. "

For fucks sake, have you never heard of footnotes? Are you really this insensitive to context? What I actually wrote was:

Fucking hell, you just don't understand what the anthropomorphic fallacy is, do you? Superstition was NOT necessary in the development of humanity, you stupid bitch. Its not a human engineer, it does not act like one, and it is certainly not a God to be worshiped *.

...

* Which, by the way, strikes me as idolatry. Last I checked your world view considers that a sin.

Tell me what is wrong with my reasoning (which I have elaborated on, if you haven't noticed), or shut the fuck up. You do not get to make accusations of lying backed only upon your own say-so. Also, I like how you ignored the smiley, which was supposed to indicate that I was mocking her, even if I do happen to think its true.

Again, how you can construe Maj's statement as idolatry is beyond me. Except that you, in fact, are just filled with hatred.

Hatred is never justifiable, even if you're an atheist, against a person who demonstrates no hatred.

I don't need to accuse. The truth is simple: You were a jackass. And I therefore ignore all of your petty attempts to absolve yourself of this shitty behavior.

Do you love psychopaths? Do you love murderers? Do you love idiots who make your world a living hell?

I hate people who hold objectively immoral beliefs. I hate the pervasive effect of stupidity and dishonesty on this world. I hate it all with a fiery passion, and I hate you for being a dishonest piece of work. Hatred is not inherently evil, unless it leads to bigotry. I am no bigot-- in fact I hate bigots. I'm just an atheist who happens to find the effects of religion disgusting and I make no apologies for that fact. There is no choir here you can preach to. Make a coherent argument, or fuck off. Ad Hominems are no substitute. I have no obligation to be nice about this. You on the other hand have evidence to come up with concerning the crusades. I am waiting.

[Zinegata]

My last post in this thread before I get some guidance.

You said....

Fucking hell, you just don't understand what the anthropomorphic fallacy is, do you? Superstition was NOT necessary in the development of humanity, you stupid bitch. Its not a human engineer, it does not act like one, and it is certainly not a God to be worshiped *.

Then you said...

Its not that she's defending evolution-- its that she's trying to act like its a moral authority. Something that, last I checked (you know, from that time in my life when I was a christian?) was considered the domain of God by christians.

So, again, please explain to me: How do you go from "Maj is wrong, superstition is not God" to "A Christian is not allowed to believe in evolution!"

Frankly, the only way it seems that you can make this leap is via irrational hatred, despite all of your claims that you actually champion logic and science.

[Zinegata]

Ghetto edit:

BTW, just to conform to board rules, as requested, the Nazi experments:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ziexp.html

Note that there are actually a lot of them, but I specifically cited the hypothermia experiment as it's the one that actually got used to build survival suits. The rest were shit.

[Metahive]

Again, I'm not even remotely denying that you are correct that the Taiping rebellion was mostly about the age-old "Kill Evil Foreigners!" rationale. That's like, the rationale behind the Ming, Han, and probably a couple of other dynasties.

EDIT: I insult people by posting stupid pictures!

So again, if that's what's driving you nuts, let me spell it out again for you: Yes, the Taiping rebellion was probably mainly caused by political reasons. The religious one was a subtext. I have not denied this. You are right. Do your happy dance.

EDIT: I call someone a weasel by posting stupid pictures!

It's also totally irrelevant. Again, do you deny that most Chinese have little shrines dedicated to stuff like prosperity and good health? Does that not contitute superstition? You're in China. So answer the question then.

EDIT: I call someone guilty of a strawman argument by posting stupid pictures!

Did I say there's none? I merely asked you to tell me about it. O yeah, and whatever small sample you personally observe in your little chinese exclave can hardly be called representative anyway, right?
BTW, this little gem here:

It is worth noting that Chinese society, while not being completely free from religion or superstition, has never had religion or superstition as a main driving force in its government or culture.

So no, please pick another civilization for your "Society without superstition". Even mainland Chinese have managed to maintain these same superstitions (just go into the store of a newly-arrived Chinese immigrant and you're almost guaranteed to find a shrine dedicated to prosperity) despite Mao's best efforts.

...makes you ineligible to call anyone a liar misrepresenting your points.

Edit: Stripped out the infantile version of debate points. -- Lagmonster

[Zinegata]

I have said that I am awaiting guidance, so I will have to ignore you for now.

[Metahive]

I have said that I am awaiting guidance, so I will have to ignore you for now.

Oh, I am happy to oblige. This whole tangent was about how China never let its own policy be influenced by religion and superstition to the extend of certain other countries, like medieval Europe or the Middle East, which you first tried to misrepresent as people claiming that China lacks superstition in toto and then tried to argue examples where superstition supposedly did influence chinese policy in a major way (like Taiping Tianguo or calling Confucianism a religion), yet those were all shot down.

Time to concede.

[Zinegata]

I have said that I am awaiting guidance, so I will have to ignore you for now.

Oh, I am happy to oblige. This whole tangent was about how China never let its own policy be influenced by religion and superstition to the extend of certain other countries, like medieval Europe or the Middle East, which you first tried to misrepresent as people claiming that China lacks superstition in toto and then tried to argue examples where superstition supposedly did influence chinese policy in a major way (like Taiping Tianguo or calling Confucianism a religion), yet those were all shot down.

Time to concede.

You know, let's forget the guidance for now (I hope they don't get mad though >_>).

I'll just say you are completely correct, except in three regards:

1) Confucionism is considered by some to be a religion. There is a debate about this, and nobody has won it yet.

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F ... 20Hazy.pdf

And you know what? Even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter: Because my point is that there's no centralized Church in China that can do stupid superstitious stuff in their name. You say I'm strawman?

While most Chinese technically worship either Confuciunism or Buddhism, the only reason they don't seem to be "superstitious" is because neither of these religion have a highly visible organization like the Catholic Church doing stupid, superstitious shit in their name.

Well fuck you. I said that since my first statement and you've been ignoring it, instead accusing me (falsely) of strawman. Wanna score brownie points? Go choke on one.

2) I said "Society without superstition". Fine. That's wrong.

But you then made the equally bad mistake of ignoring the rest of my post - which does in fact attempt to show that Lusyanka's post isn't correct either: Which is that superstitions barely influence Chinese society and culture:

It is worth noting that Chinese society, while not being completely free from religion or superstition, has never had religion or superstition as a main driving force in its government or culture

Again, if you wanna claim that Chinese culture isn't influenced by superstition, when you have little shrines for every little spirit (something you never refuted), and stuff like Feng Shui, Chi, and Yin-Yang all over Chinese culture (which influence even things like skyscraper design), then you're a fucking retard.

3) Finally, you said...

This whole tangent was about how China never let its own policy be influenced by religion and superstition to the extend of certain other countries

That's not what Lusyanka said. Instead, she implied that other countries have their governments driven mainy by religion.

Same quote, different emphasis:

It is worth noting that Chinese society, while not being completely free from religion or superstition, has never had religion or superstition as a main driving force in its government or culture

So you're actually not telling the truth either. It's not me "attacking" some moderate position. It's me attacking someone who implied that the rest of the world are run by fucking theocracies.

(And no, a government whose main driving force is religion is totally a theocracy. That's not strawman. That's me simply emulating your level of selective nitpicking to its extremes).

[Lagmonster]

Here's your guidance: Keep arguing. Debate is what this is about. However, you people are all over the fucking place and wasting time arguing about what you're arguing about. Pick a specific disagreement and tackle it without letting yourselves get sidetracked.

However: If this descends into more of Metahive's jackass-style debate posts, I'll mod the whole lot of you.

[AniThyng]

Speaking as a Malaysian Chinese (if we play the "are you really chinese and qualified to talk about chinese" game), it's worth noting that aside from Christians with a western education and bent, the Chinese do not actually use religion and superstition as backing for actual meaningful actions they take in business and politics - making it so that your office block conforms to fengshui and having a shrine in your house don't count - ultimately those are trivial issues. Chinese people do this because "hey why not?". If christians and muslims weren't so uptight about one religion only we'd be happy to put jesus on the pedestal next to Buddha and Kuan Yin

I mean seriously - you do not see the MCA (government chinese party) or DAP (opposition Chinese party) directly bring up chinese religion or supersition in the same way the Malays on both sides of the political spectrum do with Islam - why is that? Yes, they talk about the rights of Christians and Buddhists to worship freely, but that's not quite the same. And you'd note that confucionism tends to be coached in a way that avoids alienating christians - that can't be done if it wasn't on such a fuzzy line between "cultural" and "religion".

[Zinegata]

Right, got some good advice, let's start over.

AniThying->

I agree with you, actually. My point is that superstition permeates Chinese culture, but I certainly don't think it permeates Chinese government/leadership. Your experiences with Malaysian Chinese is very similar to Filipino Chinese, with one exception: We totally have Buddhist-Catholic hybrid families. And our shrines have Buddha, Jesus, and a couple of other Deities on them

(In fact, I am the product of one. Mom's Catholic, Dad's Buddhist. They kinda insisted I was both. And our local priests don't seem to care).

[Lagmonster]

Speaking as a Malaysian Chinese (if we play the "are you really chinese and qualified to talk about chinese" game), it's worth noting that aside from Christians with a western education and bent, the Chinese do not actually use religion and superstition as backing for actual meaningful actions they take in business and politics - making it so that your office block conforms to fengshui and having a shrine in your house don't count - ultimately those are trivial issues.

Anecdotally, China is a big fucking country with a wide swath of people, some of whom will be nuts and some of whom will be sensible. I recall some years ago a friend of mine ran a virtual office business. Some of her clients were from out of country and looking for a foothold in Canada. Of these, the Chinese businessmen were notoriously difficult for being assigned a business phone number. Why? Because some numbers were considered unlucky by Chinese cultural superstition. In that regard, she had to work closely with a number of her clients to make sure that office numbers, business addresses, and the like contained no uncomfortable digits.

To balance the anecdote, one of my new neighbours is a woman recently come over from...some town I can't pronounce near Beijing...who derides the 'country people' back home as largely ignorant and anti-progress. She's been interesting to talk to, because she's one of the semi-wealthy urbanites from modern China and doesn't bring with her the stereotypes I might think of otherwise.

[Metahive]

I behaved unruly and over the line, I apologize.

[Zinegata]

Also, let me restate my original reason for posting here:

A person can believe in both in the Theory of Evolution, and God, at the same time. And I believe they can do so with full conviction. Without any ulterior motive. Without being "stupid" and hence mock-worthy.

This is a fact.

Therefore, do not attribute "Belief in God" as synonymous with "Death of rationality or scientific thought". These are not the same.

Why?

Because the alleged atrocities committed by religion mentioned here - the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust - all have one thing in common. They were planned by rational people.

You cannot organize a Crusader army, sail it across the Mediterranean, and then besiege an enemy city without knowing logistics. You cannot organize the mass-murder of an entire people without the ability to plan. You can't develop poison gas to kill Jews unless you use the scientific method. Like it or not, committing genocide requires rational thought.

In short, the notion that a person can only be rational or irrational is silly. All people have a rational side and an irrational side. And the latter is why superstition persists - for both good and ill.

[Metahive]

A person can believe in both in the Theory of Evolution, and God, at the same time. And I believe they can do so with full conviction. Without any ulterior motive. Without being "stupid" and hence mock-worthy.

This is a fact.

It's called cognitive dissonance, holding mutually exclusive viewpoints at the same time.

Therefore, do not attribute "Belief in God" as synonymous with "Death of rationality or scientific thought". These are not the same.

It's however still an irrational belief.

Because the alleged atrocities committed by religion mentioned here - the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust - all have one thing in common. They were planned by rational people.

...for irrational reasons.

In short, the notion that a person can only be rational or irrational is silly. All people have a rational side and an irrational side. And the latter is why superstition persists - for both good and ill.

I don't think anyone here disputed that.

[Spoonist]

A person can believe in both in the Theory of Evolution, and God, at the same time. And I believe they can do so with full conviction. Without any ulterior motive. Without being "stupid" and hence mock-worthy.

This is a fact.

It's called cognitive dissonance, holding mutually exclusive viewpoints at the same time.

First, Zinegata nope that is not a fact. Both the "I believe so" and the "mock-worthy" would be subjective interpretations.

Second, Metahive nah. Believing that god 'created' evolution is not cognitive dissonance, its the rationalization that follows it.