Religion

[#1 bro]

the fact you believe this baselessly is really quite a horrible thing

No, I definitely read it somewhere, I just can't be bothered to go out and find that source again.

 

[Gigamelon]

Knowledge is good. Very well. The knowledge of the tensile strength of muscle, sinew and bone and cartilage, and, by extension, the exact force and leverage necessary to tear a limb away from a body, is by default a good thing. The knowledge of the water pressure necessary to rupture the inside of ones anus and cause the intestinal contents to flood the body cavity is, again by default, a good thing. As is the the knowledge of exactly how much heat is necessary to remove any biological remains.

That last one has some good applications, I admit.

Not all knowledge is automatically good. That is the point I am trying to make.

On the other hand, knowing the exact placement of nerves in the body, and their correlation to muscle and blood vessels, is a very good thing for a surgeon to know. It is a very bad thing for a torturer to know.

So here is the logical extension: it depends on who holds the knowledge, and what it is used for.

Knowledge itself is without the human connotations of 'good' and 'bad'. It simply is.

 

[ultraviolet]

Look at all the wars caused by religion. All the murders. It's ridiculous.

"Hey, they're black/asian/white/hispanic/middle-eastern! Let's get 'em!"

There'd still be war whether religion was present or not - it seems to be that war is the human way of solving disagreements. People would just find something else to discriminate against; it's like saying being gay is bad because it causes fighting between homophobes and non-homophobes. I doubt there would have been any less wars if religion was non-existant.

 

[Valor]

No, I definitely read it somewhere, I just can't be bothered to go out and find that source again.

I read somewhere that Obama is a terrorist. Where? I dunno, but if I read it, obviously it must be true.

What the hell is the point of donating if you feel obligated to do so? It's donating, it's purely to help others. If you don't want to help a group, then don't donate. I've passed up so many donation opportunities that I did not care for, yet I've donated to animal shelters, children of soldiers in Iraq, and other things that I've been very fond of helping.

If anything, a lack of religion helps people feel better about donation.

 

[#1 bro]

I read somewhere that Obama is a terrorist. Where? I dunno, but if I read it, obviously it must be true.

This is the debating board on an internet forum - not a research paper or something. This forum exists primarily for entertainment, and while it's still serious, I really don't think people should be taking it so seriously to do research and citing sources.

But since you asked so nicely:

link 1
link 2

particularly this bit:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent).

What the hell is the point of donating if you feel obligated to do so? It's donating, it's purely to help others. If you don't want to help a group, then don't donate. I've passed up so many donation opportunities that I did not care for, yet I've donated to animal shelters, children of soldiers in Iraq, and other things that I've been very fond of helping.

If anything, a lack of religion helps people feel better about donation.

I don't know for sure, but I highly, highly doubt that statistics would show that non-religious people donate to more worthy causes than religious people. I'm guessing the reason religious people donate more is either

a) their church encourages them to

b) an atheist's thought process goes: "Man, I should really donate to charity, but I also really, really, want an Xbox 360. When I have a surplus of money, then I think I'll donate to charity."

a religious person's thought process might go: "Man, I should really donate to charity, but I also really, really, want an Xbox 360. When I have a surplus of money, then I think I'll donate to charity. But wait. What would God want me to do? He would want me to help my fellow man. Better go donate to charity."


Now of course I'm not trying to say that atheists are incapable of donating to charity, or whatever you might assume. Far from it, I think that the world would in fact be a better place if there was no religion. I'm just trying to show that religion can bring about good things.

 

[Tarvos]

yes it brings about some good things using the wrong train of thought

 

[Harlequin]

"Hey, they're black/asian/white/hispanic/middle-eastern! Let's get 'em!"

There'd still be war whether religion was present or not - it seems to be that war is the human way of solving disagreements. People would just find something else to discriminate against; it's like saying being gay is bad because it causes fighting between homophobes and non-homophobes. I doubt there would have been any less wars if religion was non-existant.

crusades
war on terror

 

[ultraviolet]

Sure, but there would have been wars over other things instead (i.e: skin colour).

 

[Dannichu]

Well yes obviously, and those do happen even now (when religion exists), but religious intolerance is yet another thing that causes dicrimination (and a lot of it). If religion didn't exist, there'd be less discrimination, and a lot less problems. Look at all the wars caused by religion. All the murders. It's ridiculous.

No, UV's completely right. Yes, religious intolerance leads to a lot of discrimination, but so do gay people, and most of the people on here don't have a problem with that. The existence of countries leads to differences and discrimination (and one helluva lot more wars than religion). Different political veiws and subcultures lead to discrimination; hell anything can be used to discriminate against people, but that doesn't mean that the difference is a bad thing; the solution isn't to get rid of the differences, but to accept them and raise your own tolerance and acceptance of those who are different.

 

[Valor]

This is the debating board on an internet forum - not a research paper or something. This forum exists primarily for entertainment, and while it's still serious, I really don't think people should be taking it so seriously to do research and citing sources.

But since you asked so nicely:

link 1
link 2

particularly this bit:




I don't know for sure, but I highly, highly doubt that statistics would show that non-religious people donate to more worthy causes than religious people. I'm guessing the reason religious people donate more is either

a) their church encourages them to

b) an atheist's thought process goes: "Man, I should really donate to charity, but I also really, really, want an Xbox 360. When I have a surplus of money, then I think I'll donate to charity."

a religious person's thought process might go: "Man, I should really donate to charity, but I also really, really, want an Xbox 360. When I have a surplus of money, then I think I'll donate to charity. But wait. What would God want me to do? He would want me to help my fellow man. Better go donate to charity."


Now of course I'm not trying to say that atheists are incapable of donating to charity, or whatever you might assume. Far from it, I think that the world would in fact be a better place if there was no religion. I'm just trying to show that religion can bring about good things.

Stop, stop stop stop. Excuse me... How old are you? Did you really think this is all fun and games? Do you NOT know how a debate goes? Obviously you don't otherwise you would know that the base of debating revolves around having sources to back up one's point. It's foolish at best to just waltz into a Debating forum and say "THIS IS RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO".

But since you were so kind as to provide sources, I can say that your sources are also foolish.

Look at BOTH OF THEM. THEY'RE RELIGIOUS SITES. See that? See that? Of course they're going to be biased, there's a Goddamn section dedicated to countering any excuse for not donating. The entire table of Nonreligious people is insulting them, not giving a legitimate excuse.

Others give out of a desire to gain fame and notoriety, contradicting Jesus’ teaching about giving unostentatiously.

So who did these people interview? I don't know a single atheist or even agnostic that's like this. If a person gives, they're going to do it because they want to help the cause. They don't give a shit about what others think for this action, all that matters is that they're helping a cause, it'll feel good for a while, the person goes back to their life, and it'll make a good memory for them as they age.

I also like how they mention Jesus' teaching when it's rather obvious they aren't exactly a follower of Jesus.

Churches don't encourage, they demand. They just don't do it in the way that would be obvious. "YOU SHOULD DONATE. WHY? BECAUSE JESUS TOLD US TO. LOL OK." Bullshit. Whatever it takes to stay out of hell, to these people.

And what's wrong with saving money? I'm not going to go into the poor house because an orphan house can't afford better quality meals. That's not helping. Donations should occur when a person is capable of making one and not having to lose their current life style. The idea of Christianity is telling us to not have very rich lives, which ruins the idea of working hard in the first place.

Also, tithes. Look it up. Also known as forced donation.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I agree with this. What I think I'm trying to say is that there are two things we should all be able to agree on:

a) Religion should not be blamed for all our problems
b) Good things and bad things come from religion, and good things and bad things come from atheism

a) I agree a hundred per cent, people who blame everything on religion annoy me like hell.
b) I think this might be true, but I still prefer atheism (probably biased since I am one! :v) because atheists are driven by their own conscience rather than some half-hearted want to please Sky Daddy. I know this isn't true for many religious people and that those with common sense do their own thing but it's unfortunately true for lots of others. I'm by no mean saying atheists are better people either, please don't get that impression!

"Hey, they're black/asian/white/hispanic/middle-eastern! Let's get 'em!"

There'd still be war whether religion was present or not - it seems to be that war is the human way of solving disagreements. People would just find something else to discriminate against; it's like saying being gay is bad because it causes fighting between homophobes and non-homophobes. I doubt there would have been any less wars if religion was non-existant.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any wars if religion didn't exist, obviously, but there would definitely be less. And yeah, if gay people didn't exist there wouldn't be any bullshit homophobia because homosexuality wouldn't exist. But homosexuality isn't a choice whilst religion is, and religion gets a lot more protection and gets to attack homosexuals to boot so I find that unfair.
That's my main qualm with religion: to me, it seems unfair, hypocritical and too set in its ways, it dosb't change according to social evolution. And if it does eventually change, it takes ages to do so. Again, not talking about your average believer, but the church itself. And fundamentalists.

 

[#1 bro]

Look at BOTH OF THEM. THEY'RE RELIGIOUS SITES. See that? See that? Of course they're going to be biased, there's a Goddamn section dedicated to countering any excuse for not donating. The entire table of Nonreligious people is insulting them, not giving a legitimate excuse.

I did notice that the first one was a religious site, however, it seemed reliable enough as it cited its sources, and it's not as if it just included information on atheists to make them look bad - this was part of a whole section on racial, socioeconimic, and religious demographics and how much they gave to charity.

The second one doesn't seem to have any religious affiliation so I'm not quite sure where you're getting this.

Also, keep in mind that these were only the first two sources I found, there are surely more.

Churches don't encourage, they demand. They just don't do it in the way that would be obvious. "YOU SHOULD DONATE. WHY? BECAUSE JESUS TOLD US TO. LOL OK." Bullshit. Whatever it takes to stay out of hell, to these people.

And what's wrong with saving money? I'm not going to go into the poor house because an orphan house can't afford better quality meals. That's not helping. Donations should occur when a person is capable of making one and not having to lose their current life style. The idea of Christianity is telling us to not have very rich lives, which ruins the idea of working hard in the first place.

Also, tithes. Look it up. Also known as forced donation.

The point I'm trying to make isn't "Religious believers donate more than atheists do, therefore, religious believers are better people", it's "Religious believers donate more than atheists do." I understand that religious people might not have entirely altruistic reasons to donate more than atheists do, but the point is that they do donate more.

another source
a fourth source
a fifth source, ctrl+f for "religious affiliation"

 

[Philly]

But the point that I think everyone is trying to make is that they are giving only to please the Magical Guy in the Sky, and not because they feel for the people of the organization and wherever the money is going to.

 

[Zuu]

Congratulations on reading!

 

[ultraviolet]

Religion itself is not inherently bad - it's how people interpret it and act upon that.

 

[Tarvos]

Religion itself is not inherently bad - it's how people interpret it and act upon that.

Religion is inherently delusional. That's not really great, now, is it?

 

[Music Dragon]

Religion is inherently delusional. That's not really great, now, is it?

But then delusion is not inherently bad, so...

 

[#1 bro]

But the point that I think everyone is trying to make is that they are giving only to please the Magical Guy in the Sky, and not because they feel for the people of the organization and wherever the money is going to.

Did you not read what I said in the post right above yours? (unless I ninja'd you, if so I'm sorry)

The point I'm trying to make isn't "Religious believers donate more than atheists do, therefore, religious believers are better people", it's "Religious believers donate more than atheists do." I understand that religious people might not have entirely altruistic reasons to donate more than atheists do, but the point is that they do donate more.

EDIT: Also, it bothers me how people are assuming that all religious believers only donate because they want to get into heaven or because they are forced to by their church. I'm sure that there are religious believers who genuinely do want to help the poor/cure disease/whatever and donate accordingly.

 

[Mirry]

Is it really fair to say that more religious believers donate than atheists do when there are more religious believers out there than atheists?

 

[Tarvos]

But then delusion is not inherently bad, so...

it is pretty bad when people abuse it like religious institutions do