carepov

Yes, really.

IMO, a very small percentage of religious people have beleifs anywhere close to what you describe.

1. Some religious fundamentalist beleifs are holding back progress in society. 2. Some humanist religious or interfaith communities are a major driving force for progress in society. Mocking, ridiculing, and stereotyping all believers hiders the work of 2. while adding to the influence of 1.

Yes, most beleiver`s take a leap of faith and beleive in God. But remember, your original assertion about suspending critical thinking was not specifically about the existance of God: It is not exactly the same, but for me marriage is still a leap of faith. Yes, I agree. IMO religious people do this as much as non-religious people. (I of course will change this opinion if presented with contrary evidence).

What are you talking about. Here`s the context: I suggest that you read ``a history of God`` by Karen Armstrong.

Fair enough. I notice that you chose not to respond to the two other hypotheticals that I presented. Most people, whether religious or not, are content with ``we don`t know yet``. IMO, most religious people beleive that there is a God but that humanity cannot fathom this God. Not much different really from the non-religious ``we don`t know yet``. Judging by theological debates, ongoing for millenia, I would conclude that relious people are certainly concerned with the quality of the answers.

Mostly no, but sometimes yes, it depends. I value honesty but I also other values such as happiness, security and health - usually there is no conflict but I would sometimes rather tell a lie, wouldn't you? If your partner asks, "do these jeans make me look fat?" - how do you answer? If your young child asks, "is grandma gone forever?" - how do you answer? How about if a teenaged neice just lost a close relative and she is from a religious family. She asks you, "do you think that I am stupid for praying to God and believing that my sister is in heaven?" - How do you answer? How can you think that religious people do not care about the quality of the answer? Here is another example of you believing something without evidence.

In my limited experience and understanding (note: I have no experience and understanding of extremist religions), most do nothing like what you describe, in fact they do the opposite. Often, they tell a story and then ask you to reflect on the meanings and moral dilemmas faced by the characters in the story. This builds empathy and critical thinking. 1. I can surmise from your posts that you have plenty of beliefs without evidence. 2. Some people look at the beauty in nature and for them that is evidence of a creator. I do not share this belief but I respect it, and it can never be disproven. I have faith in my marriage. I believe that the love will last our whole lives and I have no evidence to support this beleif. (in fact I have a few data points that seem to refute this belief!). There are so many questions in life that an individual needs to anwser - there is not enough time to obtain evidence for all the answers. Sometimes a leap of faith is the most logical way to "answer" the question, if only to move on to other questions. What evidence led you to beileive that I "accept that a god created life, the universe and everything"? Don't seach too long: I do not.

You may be correct about typical patterns towards religion. Still, even if it is a minority, a significant number of people greatly benefit from religion and IMO they (and therefore all of society) would be worse off without it. -Some people can get stuck on unanswerable questions like: What happened before the big bang? Why are we here? What happens when we die? -Some people would get no peace, tranquility if they did not pray or attend service -Some people would less connected to the past through traditions without their religion -Some people may not see their grandparents or other family members as often without religion -Some people feel that they do not belong in any other social group but feel welcome in their religion -Some people would not get over a major loss or trauma without their religion -Some people would give nothing to charity without religion -Religion makes some people happier -Some people would act less morally without religious guidance These are the gaps that I am talking about - and yes, there will be no gaps for some people perhaps no significant gaps for most people.

I feel exactly the same way - except that: nobody said that one individual secular life is less happy than a religious life. On average, people that beleive are happier than non-beleivers, but there are still many non-beleivers that are happier than beleivers. 1. Intellectual curiosity and a lust for knowledge are as much a part of a religious life as happiness is a part of secular life. 2. What is actually replacing religion is football and shopping.

Thank you. Several posters on MLW, people I know (including my brother), and some prominent intellectuals, openly mock and ridicule all religious beliefs. I must admit that in the past I too had a prejudice that "religious people are gullible simpletons". The main action that I am proposing is that people stop this way of thinking and their rude mockery of believers. This mockery is counter productive - it adds fuel to the extremists that then claim: "look at secular society - they are attacking our religion". If secular and religious humanists work more closely together this can only have good results. This is great for you and other non-believers that do the same. But is seems like, on average, religious people interact more/better than non-religious people. Why?

Good points but I will balance them out with counterpoints: Yes, the influence of religion has been gradually reduced for 500 years as the standards of living has gradually increased, it is not easy to prove which is cause and what is effect. IMO, our standard of living improved first and then the influence of religion fell off a cliff. I am specifically thinking of the period from 1945-1970 and a perfect example is the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. Yes our progress in living standards is due to science and technology. And yes, there are cases where religion has been an obstacle to scientific progress - but: a.) religion has also been a driving force in scientific progress, think of Michelangelo, Newton and Europe's first universities b.) religion has not been a significant obstacle to scientific progress for a long time Please remember that I am not arguing that the level of religion in the days of Galileo was acceptable or beneficial. I am very thankful that the influence of religion has diminished to where is today and thankful for the separation of the church and state. I am saying that today's society is better off with the level of religion we have compared to the hypothetical society where there is no religion. a.) There are countless examples of religious people and groups that alleviate misery throughout the world. b.) There are barbaric acts taking place in the name of religion Lets get rid of b.) but keep a.) So if people can be just as happy without religion, why aren't they joining these social clubs?

No, it's actually: more misery = more religion The least religious countries are the happiest because they have the highest standard of living (least misery/poverty, highest GDP per capita). If you doubt that religion is the effect of misery not the cause then consider: -Within each country, religious people are, on average happier. -What came first in the West - a higher standard of living or less religion? -It is the same as asking: why do the poorest countries have the greatest fertility rates? It is poverty that leads to larger family sizes not the other way around. Like red wine, religion has many benefits for society - in moderation.

His model was for and extra 100,000 immigrants per year with the current selection system. An improved system would surely result in a positive GDP per capita growth. There is no way we can avoid the issues you mention without limiting population growth. With increased wealth (GDP) we can better address the issues. My gut tells me that 250,000 - 350,000 immigrants per year with continued improvements to the system is optimal. Like you, I would like to see an objective government study on the issue.

Yes that is true, but it does not mean: Here is a good article outlining some of the costs/benefits of our immigration policy: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/ "“Does [immigration]have a positive impact? The answer is probably yes,” said University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan. “The benefits have clearly declined over time, though, because people are not earning to the extent that their equivalent criteria or credentials should allow them.”" The benefits are not as much as they once were - but they still outweigh the costs.

Yes, most people are mostly born into their religion, but throughout life people choose their level of involvement - and it changes over time. Religious people (adults) actively choose to be part of a community as much as non-religious people. "the study suggested a causal link between religion and life satisfaction: People who had started attending church more often between the 2006 and 2007 surveys became happier." http://www.livescience.com/9090-religion-people-happier-hint-god.html I'll go back to my earlier question, phrased differently. Many people such as Bonam, claim that religion is not needed for individuals and society to enjoy the "benefits of religion" such as increased happiness. So if people can just as happy without religion, why aren't they? Why hasn't anything been able to replace religion yet?

That seems to be what that earlier study suggested, it makes sense and I mostly agree. The interesting question is: why are religious people significantly more likely to be involved in a community of people that support each other?

As per several of my earlier links, multiple studies have confirmed that religious people are on average happier than non-religious people. It looks like sociologists have accepted this correlation and are researching its reasons.

From the link: "While a higher number of secular close friendships were also associated with life satisfaction, church friendships seem to involve something that lifts satisfaction even more, Lim said." On average Church goers are hapier because they form more or better relationships. Why do you think that is? Without religion today, there will be a gap in many people's lives - what would fill this gap? I know that there are many virtuous and happy people with no religious beleifs. That's great but is is a minority; I cannot imagine humanity without religion. Aside from the minority of fundamentalist preachers, religious leader do not ask beleivers to suspend critical thinking. Religious and spiritiual thinking/meditating in fact enhance critical thinking. Religious leaders often ask beleivers to think of others and think critically about how our actions impact others. Religious people already have the power to make their own moral decisions, what are you talking about? By the way, for a non-religious person, you certainly seem to have a lot of faith in humanity.

The probability of Canada adopting any significant part of Sharia law with 2-3 generations is negligible. Canada's Muslim population in 2031 is projected to grow to 6.3-7.3 % http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-551-x/91-551-x2010001-eng.pdf (p.25) What will it be in 2050, 2070? 10%, 20%, surely no more than 25%? Of those, how many will support/push for Sharia Law? For reference the world's Muslim population is growing by 2% per year and by 2050 will make up 25% of the world population, up from today's 21% http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

A sample size of 1 does not represent a population of 7,000,000,000. Why is it that religious pleople are on average more satisfied with their lives than non-religious people? Why don't all non-religious people just do what you do (interact more) and be just as happy as religious people? The term evil baggage is not the strawman. You are right there is evil baggage associated with religion - I have never claimed othertwise. The straw-man is in your argument suggesting that people that disagree with your position tolerate this evil baggage. The flaws in your logic include: -Assuming that evil baggage is inseparable from religion -Assuming that a reduction in religion will lead to a reduction in evil. I will use a similar argument as you used regarding benefits of religion: almost all of the evil that you associate with religion is easily acheivable without religion. I will add: some evil acts are more likely to happen, or are more likely to be worse, in a society with less religion.

Well if you seriously to not mean to be condescending then I suggest that you take a minute before clicking "post" and re-read your message imagining that you are a religious person. I somewhat agree, but you are too quick on the draw when it comes to ridicule - and this takes away from the discussion (although some of your lines are quite funny). Also, when it comes to religious ideas your posts contain misconstrued judgements and stereotypes and you are often ridiculing a strawman. If the social interaction gained through religious groups can be easily replaced through other social interaction - why isn't it? Why is there a difference between the two populations - religious and non-religious? There we go, condescension (fable) and strawman (evil baggage) both A.Now and I have stated we should rid religion of its evil baggage. There is not a trade off between progress and moderate religion, we can have both; and in many cases religion is a good tool to help individuals (and therefore society) progress.

First or all, a condescending tone towards all believers does not help. I appreciated the studies that correlate religiosity to various social indicators; you do not seem to appreciate the benefits of religion to many individuals and society. Here are some interesting links to support the benefits of religion: "Studies have proven that religious people are more satisfied with their lives than nonbelievers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_satisfaction#Religion "Our findings suggest that religious people are more satisfied with their lives because they regularly attend religious services and build social networks in their congregations." http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/6/914 and http://www.livescience.com/9090-religion-people-happier-hint-god.html "The results imply that faith-based correctional programs can reduce recidivism.." http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/57/7/813.abstract "Adult children who attended religious services more frequently were significantly more likely to provide assistance to parents, and they reported higher quality relationships and more frequent contact with both their fathers and mothers" http://psychsocgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/5/825.abstract "We find that religious attendance is associated with higher levels of social integration and social support and that social integration and social support are associated with lower levels of loneliness." http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/1/39.abstract Not to mention the benefits to individuals that are religious, otherwise in today's advanced society why would anyone choose to be religious. *** As A.Now suggested, there is no doubt that at the extreme (fanaticism) is detrimental and everyone agrees that excessive religious influence is worse than moderate or even no religion. IMO, some religion is a net benefit to society, akin to most people's skill level in pool, darts or golf vs. alcohol consumption, or even the net benefits of alcohol consumption in general - the relationship is a skewed inverse parabola.

I agree with you that Islam does "take itself seriously" and have never suggested otherwise. The fact that I do not agree that Islam will dominate thw West does not mean that I belittle Islam. Your recent responses to me have nothing to do with what I wrote, my latest was a simple request for a clarification of your position.

If I understand you correctly, Islam will dominate the world, as per the Quran, as per Allah. When? Sometime between now and eternity With what means? One billion Muslims (growing at 2% per year) will unite their power that consists of vast oil reserves and 53 UN General Assembly votes and some armies that are stronger than Canada's. Is this your position?