HuskersNow

 

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but it seems as if you're contending that Theists donate to charity simply to skew statistics in their favor.

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.

But the contention we're talking about isn't that Theists donate more to charity, what we're talking about is whether religion benefits anyone at all. That's the point we're debating, lest we forget. I'd say that with the stats I provided it's pretty easy to say that religion has benefits.

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.

Perhaps a better question would be, does religion's overall benefit to the world outweigh its negative impact? That's a worthy question, and more to the point of the overall discussion (I think). Religion, being a man-made tool, comprises both the good and bad that is inherent to man. My answer would be that religion, being entirely man-made, would be simply a mirror of man, and that with or without religion man would be doing the same thing he's been doing all along.

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.

As interesting as this discussion is, the very fact that religion exists, and has existed for so long, means that we'll be feeling the ramifications of religion, both good and bad, for millennia from this moment, even if all mankind were to stop today and say, "Wait a sec, this is all just bunk!" We would have to expunge religion from the history books and the oral histories of every culture for it to be truly ever taken away, and frankly the odds of that happening are nil. In my very humble opinion.

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.

Thanks for the chuckle about the blood donations.

Anytime

Since this study wasn't conducted by Theists or, as far as I know, with the knowledge of Theists, I'd say the contention that religion "doesn't help anyone" is completely unfounded.

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:

The hoover.org study claims that the effect does not disappear when you consider only donations to "nonreligious charities", but doesn't specify how they distinguished nonreligious charities from religious ones. Is the Salvation Army "nonreligious" because it isn't associated with a particular church? The Boy Scouts? You may not find it difficult to come up with reasons why nonreligious people are reluctant to support those particular organizations.

 

Similarly, some groups may be classified as not charities at all but rather political advocacy groups - even though the giver/volunteer's purpose is to contribute to the community by contributing to them. Various pro-science organizations, for instance, could be arbitrarily and silently ruled "non-charities", which would have the effect of depressing the giving/volunteering numbers of people who devote part of their giving to such organizations.

 

Furthermore, an even more important common factor is totally ignored: people's personality tendency to be joiners. The "highly religious" group was identified not by the intensity or sincerity of their beliefs (which would be difficult to measure, in any case) but by active church membership and attendance - something that can just as easily result from simple gregariousness. Gregariousness would also make people more likely to contribute their time and money to other groups of people - charitable or otherwise. Conversely, anyone who is nonreligious in the U.S. has a demonstrated ability to resist peer and social pressure. Is it that surprising that they are less influenced by peer and social pressure to contribute to charities?

 

On top of that, some charities may be promoted in church, giving the church attendees more exposure to "advertising" for the charities - in direct proportion to their church attendance. It's hardly surprising if some respond. Non-churchgoers may not even know of the existence of that same group.

 

The article also presents the concept of

 

"social capital," the stock of trust and social cohesiveness that promotes giving, volunteering, and participation in civil society.

 

 

but never once considers that participation in churches may be an *effect*, rather than a cause, of social capital. They blindly assume that the causation can only go one way - from religiousness to greater concern for social capital. What a mindbogglingly stupid assumption to make in a society with such tremendous social pressure to be (or at least seem) religious!

 

Of course social displayers in the U.S. go to church - it's one of the preeminent venues for establishing and maintaining your status as a pillar of the community. Whether this is mere vanity or serves useful functions for the community I leave for another discussion - I merely point out that the same people who *ostentatiously* give and volunteer are also ostentatiously pious.

Because of this assuming that religion itself is the cause of the increase in charity is not necessarily true.

However, your contention that "competition doesn't have to take the form of violence" is errant. Whether it has to or doesn't have to is irrelevant - it does take that form, therefore it must be taken into account. We can't stick our head in the sand and ignore things simply because they don't have to be. You can't say "Commerce doesn't have to occur due to sporting activities, therefore we can ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars sports generate toward the GDP." Doesn't work that way.

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?

 

The mugger mugs because mugging is a form of competing - competition to get more, take what's yours and make it mine. We see this behavior in every single creature, great and small, and man is no exception. From the tiniest amoeba to the blue whale, competition for mates, food, resources, safety - they all partake. Remove competition and viola! you've just eliminated one of the main reasons every creature on this planet evolved. That's hardly realistic.

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.

Theists in America give more money to charitable causes than the secular - they even give more money and volunteer more than the secular. Stating that religion is "not really helping anyone" may help you believe your point, but it's inaccurate.

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:

When these factors are properly accounted for, the proposition that weekly churchgoers are more generous than atheists is simply incorrect. Charitable donations may be higher, but this is only because Canadian law still upholds the outdated principle that espousing religious opinions is in itself a legitimate charitable activity.

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

I'm not sure where we got off onto the tangent that harm = kill, but that's not my contention. "Harm" can be defined any number of ways. Killing is just one of them. Nor did I say that every human wants to harm others. They have the potential to, but not all of them do so, for a variety of reasons. However, those reasons could pop up at any time, such as you walking down the street on lunch and you get pulled into an alley to be mugged. Chances are that if it's just you and the other guy, you're going to attempt to inflict some harm on him. Or if someone tries to hurt your wife, I'm guessing the "harm" part of your human nature will suddenly show up. It's endemic to every human, coded in our DNA. That's not a need, it's a fact. I never said it was a NEED.

And if you eliminate the reasons that the mugger is harming others, then the amount of harm in the world decreases. Voila!

I'll give you that some reasons to harm others are greater, or inflict greater harms. Certainly my neighbor's anger over my encroaching hibiscus and his subsequent Round-Up attack on said hibiscus (a harm) is lesser than one nation attacking another for encroaching on their borders (a greater harm). But that's to say that religion is endemically a great harm, which it is not. It does not inherently harm humans, although it obviously can be misused to harm humans, and obviously has been misused to that effect on multiple occasions. But simply because a thing can be misused does not mean that it cannot be used beneficially, nor does it mean it must be removed. I can smother a person to death with Linus' blanket - that doesn't make the blanket intrinsically harmful, it makes it a tool that can be misused.

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.

 

Humans are animals. We have cognitive abilities, but that only separates us from the animal kingdom by one factor. We have the same lower-brain functions as animals, we just layer reason on top of those functions. Unfortunately, the ability to reason has not shown the ability to overcome those basic animal behaviors in all humans. Until that evolutionary step occurs, if it ever does, humans will still harm humans every single day.

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.

The doesn't have to be hammered, but the nail will be hammered, because humans feel the need to hammer. Again, this is based on observed human behavior since the dawn of recorded history. Paleontologists have found numerous examples of humans who have died at the hands of other humans before any of the world's current major religions were ever founded. There is no evidence to suggest that humans ever have lived in any kind of utopian peace with each other, and being animals such a concept runs counter to observed behaviors.

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.

Animals, including humans, compete for food, shelter, prosperity, safety, comfort... you name it. The basic things that all animals want, humans want, just in human ways. We use a variety of reasons to do this, with religion being just one of tens of thousands.

 

I am not telling you what I want to happen. I am simply telling you what is easily observed to happen, and which has happened since before humans were truly homo sapiens sapiens.

 

I agree that if they don't find a reason to harm others then humans won't, but those reasons to harm are as multitudinous as grains of sand on the beach. You're stepping into a weapons store with 10,000,000 weapons and saying, "If we take away that gun, less people will be harmed." I'm saying that the difference between 10,000,000 excuses to harm people and 9,999,999 reasons to harm people are statistically zero.

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.

It is the case. There has never been a single society of humans in the history of everything that did not include humans harming humans. The ideas are simply the excuses. Remove Idea A, Idea B or Idea C, and they will use Idea D to justify their actions. If Idea D doesn't exist, they'll invent it. This is what humans do.

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.

 

Humans are humans. Humans the world over do the same things, regardless of culture, technology or security. They fight, they succumb to greed, they kill, they hurt each other. This is true in the most advanced and the most stagnant societies.

 

The removal of religion isn't going to stop these things from happening, especially when the whole point of most every major and minor world religion is peace, love, etc. Humans take these religions whose spokespersons (Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus, etc) advocate loving thy fellow man and turn them into tools for violence and hatred, the exact opposite of what they're intended for. Remove religion and people will take Winnie the Pooh and use him in the same way. Why? Because they're human, and they're looking for reasons to act on the human impulses they already have.

 

You're saying that if we remove hammers from the world then people will no longer pound nails. I'm saying in lieu of hammers we'll use the flat sides of wrenches. Regardless, those nails will still get pounded.

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.

 

You're removing humans from the world? OK...

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.

 

Err.... no, that's not my position. My position is that humans cause harm to humans. Removing humans would eliminate harm, sure, but it would pretty much end the argument.

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.

 

Agreed, it is preposterous, because you're misrepresenting my stance. Nobody is going to argue that if you remove humans than harms caused by humans will go away. But nobody is advocating removing humans. Except maybe Marvin the Martian, and frankly, my money's on Bugs.

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.

 

 

This might be a logical fallacy, but here goes.

 

A=B, B=C

Therefore, A=C

 

By that same logic

Humans are responsible for creating all religions

Religions are the cause of some human conflicts

Therefore, Humans are the cause of all religious conflicts

 

Once you've said that, there's really nothing left.

 

That is true, but that has nothing to do with the amount of harm in the world.

Then how do you reduce harmful actions in the world? What needs to change? If leaving behind errant beliefs that comprise part of your worldview doesn't account for any change in behavior, what's left to do?

 

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.

But what is the point of a lay without liberty?

 

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.

By the way, if Hell factors into your religious views, how is it that you manage to find comfort? How could you possibly lay down at night and not be consumed by an aching fear and dread for all those millions and billions that have gone and are going there? In a word this is why I see no reason to think that Christianity specifically can provide true comfort––at least for anyone not a sociopath––and even with the undefined pleasures of heaven runs a distant second to the void when you factor in everything.

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 put together a website with various stats on college football. Mainly one on National Champions. Have walking pneumonia so hope there aren’t many mistakes

 

Link

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.

 

But I don't have to give examples of where religion (organized spirituality) goes wrong, and I think we can take it as a given that it's been responsible for many, many harms inflicted on the world. But if there is no god, this is all an accident, and we either fall back into the Big Crunch or we expand forever into the Big Rip, then nothing we do, whether we invent gods or live as innocents or dominate the Universe or never existed, none of it really matters anyway... so who cares? There's no point in the knowledge, and even though I want to know everything, knowing does me no good.

 

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.