The Problem with Religious Moderates

[knapplc]

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.

Religion is a man-made tool. It is invented by men just like any other tool, and like any other tool, it is used by men to accomplish their desires. These desires exist with or without the tool, because they are basic human traits.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I insist, based on all of recorded history's example. What evidence do you have that humanity is becoming or will become kind? I've seen none, but I'm all ears to your examples.

[HuskersNow]

 

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.

[HuskersNow]

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.

[knapplc]

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.

 

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.

 

The nail 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.

 

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.

[knapplc]

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.

 

You will never remove those ideas, that's the problem. They are as diverse as individual humans. Further, you're talking about a complete evolutionary shift away from a competitive species, a change so utterly fundamental that it would obviate all of evolution for the last 655 million years. Life survived by competing. It's the single biggest block on which life is founded. I agree that it would be great if we could remove the need to compete from humans, but being realistic I know it's not going to happen.

 

My world is the observed world as it stands, unvarnished by utopian hopes, realistically assessed. Not only do I live in the US that you offer as an example of humans no longer harming humans, I work at a job where, every day, I hear about those harms in graphic detail. My own anecdotal experience shows that humans are not only not getting kinder to each other, they are finding ever more diverse ways to become less kind. Not only that, but religion is among the least common reasons for that unkindness.

 

I love where you're coming from. I want to live in that society. But it's not realistic as long as humans are animals.

[HuskersNow]

 

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.

[knapplc]

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.

Humans being animals is only one part of the equation. We are also cognitive creatures, which you failed to take into account in your response.

 

The nail 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.

 

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.

 

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'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.

[HuskersNow]

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.

[knapplc]

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!

 

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 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.

 

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.

[HuskersNow]

 

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.

[HuskersNow]

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?

[knapplc]

Thanks for the chuckle about the blood donations. That was worth a laugh. We're not talking about one very specific kind of donation, we're talking about all donations, towards the point that religious organizations do benefit people.

 

 

SOURCE

 

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.

 

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.

[knapplc]

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?

 

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. Since that seems to be what you're asking, I'll give you an honest answer - I think it's entirely unlikely that this is why Theists donate to charity.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[HuskersNow]

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.

[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.