HuskersNow

Given that Herbstreit and Pelini played together at Ohio State, I didn't expect anything less from Herbstreit when speaking about the Huskers.

That's not what I meant. I meant that theists that donate to charity already might be more likely to take part in studies of this nature, not that they donate charity to make themselves look good. It was a poor choice of words on my part to say that religion had absolutely no benefit. But I think the benefit is small and that religion causes more harm than good. The bold would be a more relevant question to debate than the current one. I think I understand your position better now, but I still disagree. Yes religion is man-made, but that doesn't mean that mankind would be causing the same amount of harm without it, as mankind does with it. Some people use religion as a reason to harm somebody that they wouldn't have otherwise harmed. By taking religion out of the equation, the person who would have been harmed is now fine. Look at different parts of the world and you'll see that the amount of harm is not the same everywhere. The reason that this is is education. With sufficient education, people will not consider strapping bombs to themselves in order to massacre 'infidels' and ensure their spot in heaven when there is no evidence that this heaven even exists. If everyone stopped believing in religion, that wouldn't mean that it would be completely erased from the history books. It would probably serve as a lesson forever of what not to do. Historians would wonder how people could believe some of these things, but it would still be known.

Anytime Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This is something that you should remember whenever looking at statistics. After doing some searching and looking at the source you gave me here is my response: 1. I tried to find the methodology that the statistics used but couldn't. Since they weren't very open about this I can't comment one way or the other on the validity of their claims. 2. After looking over the site that the statistics came from, it almost appears that theists were intimately involved with the statistics research. 3. Because of (2) I have my reservations about how biased these statistics are. 4. After scouring the web for information on this subject, I found an interesting comment here. what's interesting in that link is not the first part, but further down I read an interesting response that is valid to our discussion: Because of this assuming that religion itself is the cause of the increase in charity is not necessarily true. Why does competition sometimes take the form of violence? That I think is the issue. You say it does take that form, but I insist that it can be lessened. The amount of harm caused by competition does not have to stay constant. It's almost as if you think the amount of harm in the world is a zero sum game. Using that logic, if the amount of harm is decreased in Alaska, then the amount of harm elsewhere in the world must increase so as to stay at its total, constant value in perpetuity.

I voted for Zac. I don't honestly think the other quarterbacks can win us many games this year.

I think all husker fans who have to work on game days should start a support group. It could be therapeutic .

As an addendum to my above post, how likely do you think that the statistics linking religion with charity suffer from volunteer bias? In other words, how likely do you think it is that theists have a greater chance to participate in a study if they have donated to charity recently just to prove that theism > atheism?

I never made the claim that competition should be eliminated. Competition doesn't have to take the form of violence against someone. Mugging is a violent form of competition that is not necessary. BAM! Of course, no theist would demonstrate bias in research that tries to demonstrate the benefits of religion [/sarcasm]. I have seen it before. Besides, you just claim that theists are more generous and you don't even offer any evidence as to the truth of your claim. If you can show me statistical evidence with no hint of bias (having atheists responsible for the testing would be a big plus) then I will believe your claim. Until then, I will assume that it is false. *edit* An example of bias in a statistic This link shows how you can use bias when making statistics. Here is an excerpt of the article:

Because I love MMA I would like to be a great fighter.

And if you eliminate the reasons that the mugger is harming others, then the amount of harm in the world decreases. Voila! I believe that religion causes more harm than good. I'm also not saying that I think people should be forced to stop believing, but that it would be better if no one believed in the unfalsifiable. The benefit of religion is the comfort that people get from believing in lies. But religion is not the only lie that I could believe in that would make me feel better. The failings of religion, however, are numerous. The doctrine of faith encourages people to not think and obey without question. Religions discourage scientific advancement as we have seen in our own country. By not really helping anyone and by harming a great many, religion is not just useless, but a scourge.

Animals don't kill unless they have a reason to. They might attack if they feel threatened, whether they are being threatened or not. If you remove the fear of being attacked when there is obviously no threat from another animal, then you just spared that animal. I never proposed that a world with less ignorance and reasons to kill one another would be a utopia. In the past, humans killed each other for a variety of reasons, but I think you can say that those reasons boil down to ignorance and fear. Thousands of years ago if I saw a stranger my first thought might be to kill him out of fear. But I insist that with education, people won't feel the need to kill and harm others. It's almost as if you think wanting to kill and harm others is a fact of human nature, but my very existence denies your claim. At this moment, I don't feel the NEED to harm any other human being, let alone kill someone. So people have killed each other, but that in and of itself does not make it a need. That's like saying since people have mowed lawns in the past that it is somehow a need. It is not a need and it is only done because of the idea that a clean cut lawn looks pretty neat. Yes, there are many reasons that people use to harm each other. But I think that some ideas are more harmful than others and not every idea has the same amount of conceivable harm as you suggest. I have to run, but I will be back later tonight to continue this discussion.

My stance is that, by removing some of the ideas that cause humans to harm others, then the chances of harming others lessens considerably. Here's the problem as I see it, Knapplc. Your world is one where tribalism reigns supreme and people are powerless to resist temptations of irrational mob action. My world is one in which people can learn, they can be educated and forget their tribal instincts and live in peace for the most part. Through education, people can accept their neighbors and consider them as equals. Through education, people can throw off the yoke of religion and see their neighbors as human again. Through education, people can stop seeing their neighbors as "the others" and accept their differences. You want examples of humanity becoming kinder? Just look at different parts of the world. In some places, where ignorance is rampant, people are executed for being different in a variety of ways. But in more educated parts of the world, that doesn't happen nearly as often. Look at the United States. Although it is not exactly homogeneous, people aren't running around in the streets murdering people because they're different for the most part.

Why do humans do these things? If we remove the why then we remove the harm inflicted on others. I'm saying that the nail doesn't have to be hammered, but you think that it does. Do you think that people HAVE to inflict harm on others? I don't. I know that pain and suffering will always exist, but I insist that it can be lessened if we work at it. Regarding religion, if they don't find a reason to kill others, then they won't. You act like people are animals waiting to pounce on other unsuspecting people to kill them. I, personally, am not looking for reasons to kill the person just to the right of me. I simply have no desire to harm this man. But according to you, I'm ready to pounce. But if you plant the idea in my head that this man is seconds away from whipping out a pistol and gunning me down, then that IDEA might change my actions.

Religion is a reason to harm. Are you equating religion with people? Religion is an idea, not a person. People believe in ideas, but the idea is what causes the harm, not the person alone. WHY do humans harm other humans? It's the ideas! You act as if a human being harms people by definition, but this is not the case. Ideas are what cause people to harm others. We seem to disagree on what causes harm. You insist that somehow people are biologically programmed to inflict harm on other human beings and that no matter what happens the amount of harm will always stay the same, no matter how kind humanity eventually becomes.

That is true, but that has nothing to do with the amount of harm in the world. Nothing. It's a sad reality, but all of the actions you can take to try and change the world are worthless. I could sit here forever and try to convince people to believe what I believe all day, and to some degree I do, but it's pointless. The world seems to do an eternal balancing act. If you eliminated religion, something would replace it. The most prominent candidate to me is naturalism, or something like that. I know I always feel spiritually rejuvenated when I go to the zoo, golfing, walking, etc. Eventually, people would create a doctrine and follow it to the T. It would be a religion of sorts and people would go to war on both sides. It's fun to debate things like this, and it has certainly altered my life in some way, but it's pointless on an even larger scale. It's like thorns crackling in a fire. It doesn't mean a thing. It is not pointless. How many actions are more important than removing the amount of grief, harm, violence, etc. in the world? If everyone thought like you then I think the amount of harm in the world would be greater than it is now. Apathy is not how to combat these things and never will be. Really though, why do people think that the amount of harm in the world is constant? If you define it by equating it to the amount of people murdered per capita, then that can obviously change. If you define it as the amount of happiness in the world, then that can change although measuring happiness is an imperfect science at this time. I simply don't understand how you think it can't change. How would any of you define the amount of harm in the world?

I'm going to show that Knapplc's position is completely illogical. I'm going to operate under the assumption that Knapplc's position is true and removing something that can cause harm won't decrease the total amount of harm in the world. So under this supposition if REASON TO HARM(1) is eliminated, then the total amount of harm in the world is still constant. But let's take that further. Suppose that REASON TO HARM(1) and another harm, call it REASON TO HARM(2) is also eliminated, what then happens to the amount of harm in the world? According to Knapplc, it still stays the same. Taking this even further, let's take away the number of REASONs TO HARM all the way to the final REASON TO HARM which leaves no REASONs TO HARM in existence. According to Knapplc, what then is the total amount of harm still in existence? Why it is still at the same level as we originally had. But this is preposterous. Before you say that it is impossible to remove all reasons to harm somebody, I know that that is probably true. But the above is simply what you get when you follow Knapplc's reasoning to its logical conclusion.

lol good catch

I think he'll back up West and Gomes this year, but I think he's likely to start next year.

I encourage everyone to read the entire essay. It's quite good.

The amount of personal freedoms. Something that bothers me is that it seems that most people value the law above liberty. But what is the point of a lay without liberty?

Husker X has provided numerous examples of how belief in God can be harmful, but Knapplc keeps insisting that the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. That is preposterous. That's like saying that if you could somehow take away violence from the world, then the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. I don't buy that for a second. People aren't necessarily going to replace the harm that they caused with religion, but that is what Knapplc believes.

I don't understand how someone can believe the part in bold and consider himself moral. I mean they worship a God who places people on this earth only to send the vast majority of them to hell for all of eternity. Some Christians will say that they had their chance to believe and didn't, but why create these people anyway? It appears that the God they worship is completely sadistic. I don't think that a single person who has lived, if they had the ability to send people to hell, would send them there for all of eternity. Even those who have killed millions would eventually stop their torment given an infinite amount of time. But not God, no his vengeance against the innocent is eternal. Therefore, in regards to morals, Hitler and Stalin >>>>>>>>>>>> God and it's not even close.

I don't think the offense is too complicated and neither is the defense. The difference between the two is that one side of the football has coaches that are much better at teaching and explaining concepts than the other.

I don't think Martinez is a very good passer, but not having him puts us in a bad situation with our quarterback depth. If Zac Lee gets injured but is still able to walk, we might see a repeat of last year assuming that Cody isn't where he needs to be in his development.

I was surprised that 1994 Nebraska scored 35.3 points/game. I thought they scored more than that. But that's not bad considering Tommie Frazier was injured for most of the year.

It is possible that humanity could live on indefinitely, although I admit that this is unlikely. If there are an infinite amount of universes and humanity discovers how to warp space to travel between them then humanity could theoretically exist forever. But if we assume that the universe ends, then why do you assume that nothing matters? Do most people spend their time wondering whether or not the universe will exist in billions of years hence? How much effect does this idea really have on your life? Personally, I worry about the things that I can control. I don't worry about what is going to happen in the far future. As a matter of fact, I don't care about anything that happens after I die with a few obvious exceptions.