The many sects of Islam, so, which will dominate eventually?

[cybercoma]

The usual suspects flock to pretend that Islamic extremism is the same type of threat that other extremists from other religions.

I don't think there's anyone that doesn't recognize the problems with Islamic extremism are much, much more violent and out-of-control than other kinds of religious violence. The reason people bring up other religions is that some people don't deride all Christians for Christian-led violence, while those same people are quite content talking about all Muslims as though they're animals. The fact of the matter is that Muslims by and large are killing other Muslims just the same. The violence and problems are largely understood by the intelligence gathering community in geopolitical and economic terms, as opposed to religious ones. The religious aren't the ones that become violent, but those that are violent will turn to religion to shield themselves from criticism (religion is sacred and is not to be questioned), as well as harden their resolve. In short, the thinking is problematic because it invokes an ecological fallacy that does not support the arguments regularly made here, which are too often implicit, rather than explicit.

Edited June 24, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

Why are you comparing the Middle East to only Western nations....and only today? Are African Christians not true believers? Are the bloody deeds done by European Christians for hundreds of years forgivable?

Thankfully, in recent times, Christian leaders have decided that morality trumps the word of god and pretend that much of the hate the Bible spews does not apply. I personally think that the watering down effect is a triumph of skepticism and materialism. Give people something to lose and a little knowledge and all of a sudden the men spewing BS in the name of a god start to look a lot like big foot chasers and living Elvis spotters.

I apparently failed to mention contemporary -recent times sufficiently in my posts.

I compare the violence TODAY, in the world. Currently there has been an upheaval in the countries following Islam in that region.

What Jews or Christians did in the past centuries-is not at debate. I'm concerned with the now, with religion today, not from antiquity.

Look today upon the politic/religiously ongoing violence both sectarian and on other religious orders and I think you'll find unfortunately that it is based on Islamic politics.

I certainly understand the defense of Muslims that don't consider violence as ordained in their interpretation of their religion. There are many in Western countries and many in other Islamic countries that follow traditional tenets peacefully and with fidelity to their country without fealty to the radical Islamist interpretation that leads to terrorism.

[carepov]

Yet those same fundamentalists always feel justified in doing their god's work. Sad that these evil, vengeful gods are so pitiful and weak that they require humans to do their bidding.

Christianity certainly leads the league in historical religious violence but Islam is currently a larger problem...

In my opinion, religious belief in general requires the suspension of rational thought. Some very rational and reasonable people purposefully refuse to apply the same sound, skepticism to religion that they apply to every other area of their lives. How is this achieved? A culture of brainwashing. Teach anyone from birth that this life matters little and the god is always right and you get a compliant puppet. Now throw strife, poverty, anger, promises of rewards for positive action and you have a compliant soldier.

In my opinion, the solution is the dilution of the power of religion through increased skepticism and critical thinking. We're moving in the right direction, but just not as fast as I'd like. That tends to be the nature of cultural change and progress though.

Thankfully, in recent times, Christian leaders have decided that morality trumps the word of god and pretend that much of the hate the Bible spews does not apply. I personally think that the watering down effect is a triumph of skepticism and materialism. Give people something to lose and a little knowledge and all of a sudden the men spewing BS in the name of a god start to look a lot like big foot chasers and living Elvis spotters.

Mighty AC,

IMO your views on religion are seriously flawed. Yes, a great deal of damage has been done in the name of religion and please don't interpret my defence of religions as being apologetic, but…

There is and has been a great deal of good done in the name of religion. I see it like a package deal from the cable company; you will have some crappy channels spewing hate and some great channels spreading peace. The key is to confront the hate without cancelling the good channels:

-religious hospitals, schools and charities

-progressive social movements by religious leaders such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu

-helping people that are grieving and suffering

-welcoming people that have no sense of belonging and without their religion would be isolated and lonely

-great art and science inspired by religion (for example: Michelangelo, Newton)

Yes, religions can be divisive and have led to wars and suffering, however religion is also a uniting force that has certainly prevented much violence. I would argue that a lack of religion leads to more violence and suffering compared to that caused by religion. For every priest there is a Boy Scout leader or hockey coach, for every George W. Bush there is a Putin, for every Ayatollah, or Bin Laden there is a Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Religion is woven into the fabric of humanity and it is a big part of many people's lives, including a great deal of very generous, tolerant, intelligent, and rational people. It is good to criticize all institutions and organized religion - however not in the insulting, divisive, and inaccurate way that you are.

[Mighty AC]

Charity exists without religion. Evil also exists without religion, however, the absence of religion does not command evil acts.

Truth matters. BS bothers me in general; be it religion, astrology, Reiki, feng shui, healing crystals, etc. Belief in your luck changing due to the position of your couch or a star sign you were born under is ridiculous but mostly harmless. Religion is not. This fairy tale is very destructive and has political power. Not only do people do evil to please their gods but they combat and suppress factual knowledge because it conflicts with their chosen fable.

Imagine teaching that rubies have the power to teleport when fashioned into shoes, in science class. Or preventing medical research and instead employing princes to kiss anybody that loses consciousness. That's what we're doing now.

Men will always lie, cheat, steal and kill for money and power. It's human nature. However, we can do something about the dangerous make believers. In fact, we are. Religiosity is in an accelerating decline. That's a good thing. When its dwindling support robs religion of political power and it becomes just another laughable myth, we will all benefit.

[carepov]

Charity exists without religion. Evil also exists without religion, however, the absence of religion does not command evil acts.

I agree 100%. However my argument is that the presence of religion increases charity and other virtuous acts and diminishes evil acts.

Truth matters. BS bothers me in general; be it religion, astrology, Reiki, feng shui, healing crystals, etc. Belief in your luck changing due to the position of your couch or a star sign you were born under is ridiculous but mostly harmless. Religion is not. This fairy tale is very destructive and has political power. Not only do people do evil to please their gods but they combat and suppress factual knowledge because it conflicts with their chosen fable.

I also generally dislike BS, but religion isn't all BS. I suggest that you try a different perspective on religious teachings and texts, as a friend explained to me, try to look at them all figuratively as most rational religious people do. Remember, all teachings and texts are open to various interpretations.

Also, regarding BS. There is nothing wrong with some BS. There is nothing wrong with believing in Santa or the tooth fairy. There is nothing wrong with believing that your loved one is in a better place if it helps you move on with life. There is nothing wrong with being spiritually inspired to help people or do other work. There are great benefits to prayer.

Imagine teaching that rubies have the power to teleport when fashioned into shoes, in science class. Or preventing medical research and instead employing princes to kiss anybody that loses consciousness. That's what we're doing now.

Speaking of BS, there is no better description for this paragraph of yours. Some of today's best doctors, researchers and other scientist are religious.

Men will always lie, cheat, steal and kill for money and power. It's human nature. However, we can do something about the dangerous make believers. In fact, we are. Religiosity is in an accelerating decline. That's a good thing. When its dwindling support robs religion of political power and it becomes just another laughable myth, we will all benefit.

Don't be so sure about these benefits. What will take the place of religion? Think about the societies that tried to make this happen.

***

Obviously we both want a better world - more rational and more just. Your strong belief is that religion is a major cause for suffering and injustice. I do not disagree that some religious people are retarded (extremist, fundamentalist, literalist, etc...). My argument is that the average religious person is rational and humanist and wants to see a better world as much as, (if not more than), the average secular person. I politely suggest that you stop insulting and alienating this segment of the population - the expression of your views on religion are counter-productive.

[GostHacked]

I agree 100%. However my argument is that the presence of religion increases charity and other virtuous acts and diminishes evil acts.

Many of the scandals regarding evil acts seem to come from religion, increasing it.

Catholic Church harbors pedophiles.

Christians killing others through new crusades disguised as a secular issue

Islam has different factions fighting each other so their view is the most prominent one.

I will say that religion has increased evil acts, because in some way, you can all be forgiven for all your past sins when you go into the light. Meaning no accountability in this world, the one every one of us is living.

[carepov]

Many of the scandals regarding evil acts seem to come from religion, increasing it.

Catholic Church harbors pedophiles.

Christians killing others through new crusades disguised as a secular issue

Islam has different factions fighting each other so their view is the most prominent one.

I will say that religion has increased evil acts, because in some way, you can all be forgiven for all your past sins when you go into the light. Meaning no accountability in this world, the one every one of us is living.

I disagree.

I repeat - there is no defence of the inexcusable wrongs committed by religious organizations - but:

-Boy scouts and sport associations harbour pedophiles.

-Secular wars and mass violations of human rights have led to far more deaths and suffering than religious ones.

IMO, on average, religious people live with more accountability in this world compared to the average secular person.

When weighing the benefits of religion don't forget to consider the many great religious people, leaders and organizations (especially inter-faith organizations).

[DogOnPorch]

IMO, on average, religious people live with more accountability in this world compared to the average secular person.

IMO, the average religious person is too concerned about the afterlife to give a gosh darn about accountability to planet Earth.

[carepov]

Well you have your opinion and I have mine, here's a link that supports mine:

"But there is now a large body of research which has found a strong correlation between various measures of religiosity and everything from increased completion of homework, health care utilization, donations to charity, and volunteer work, to reduced criminal behavior, suspensions from school, and smoking. To take just one example, the 2002 National Study of Youth and Religion looked at the self-reported behavior of 2,478 twelfth-grade students and found the following

Weekly Religious Attendance / No Religious Affiliation

Sold Drugs in Past 12 Months 6.7 / 18.4
Used Hard Drugs in Past 12 Months 19.8 / 37.1
Been in Trouble with Police in Past 12 Months 6.4 / 13.7
Never Skipped School in Past Year 47.8 / 31.0
Never Volunteered in Community 13.1 / 37.8"

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/which-beliefs-contribute-virtuous-behavior

[The_Squid]

Are those percents? 37.1% of grade 12 students took hard drugs in the last year? 18% are selling drugs? One in 5 highschool students are selling drugs, according to this study. Lol

This study is searching for results that the religious are "better".

[carepov]

I am also sceptical of the study and especially of the numbers that you raised:

http://www.youthandreligion.org/sites/youthandreligion.org/files/imported/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf

But without evidence to the contrary I believe the author of the Big Question article when he says:

"But there is now a large body of research which has found a strong correlation between various measures of religiosity and everything from increased completion of homework, health care utilization, donations to charity, and volunteer work, to reduced criminal behavior, suspensions from school, and smoking."

I remember reading that religious people (I think it was specifically people that pray) on average live longer and happier lives.

And before anyone else says it: yes correlation does not prove causation.

[Mighty AC]

There are no acts of charity that require religious affiliation...yet we can all list despicable deeds that do. Praising a group that routinely preaches evil, discriminates and denounces proven facts because they also contribute to charity is wrong headed. Should we overlook the violence perpetrated by Hamas because of their charitable deeds? The KKK thinks we should forget about racism and lynchings because they now help the homeless. http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/2011-05-16/klan-doing-iwhati-these-days

Charity is and will continue to be done without the influence of religion.

Truth matters. I don't care if a person believes in a 3,500 year old, adult nursery rhyme. Just like I don't care if my neighbour believes that the position of my couch impedes optimum chi or the old lady down the street believes in the power of Reiki, crystals and witchcraft. However, when millions get together and create political power, I care.

We should all be ashamed that in the age of space stations those running to be heads of state must pretend to believe (or actually believe) in the myths and legends of ancients. The most powerful people on the planet then owe debts to dogmatic, fairy tale believing crackpots. The source of this problem has to go, even if they do make charitable donations.

[carepov]

There are no acts of charity that require religious affiliation...yet we can all list despicable deeds that do.

I cannot think of any despicable deeds that require religious affiliation... can you please provide some examples?

Praising a group that routinely preaches evil, discriminates and denounces proven facts because they also contribute to charity is wrong headed.

Agreed.

Should we overlook the violence perpetrated by Hamas because of their charitable deeds?

No.

The KKK thinks we should forget about racism and lynchings because they now help the homeless. http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/2011-05-16/klan-doing-iwhati-these-days

No, good deeds do not atone for past bad deeds. By the way is the KKK organized religion? Either way, I am against the KKK.

Charity is and will continue to be done without the influence of religion.

Yes I agree. However I will add: religion/faith has, does, and will continue to inspire more charity.

Truth matters. I don't care if a person believes in a 3,500 year old, adult nursery rhyme. Just like I don't care if my neighbour believes that the position of my couch impedes optimum chi or the old lady down the street believes in the power of Reiki, crystals and witchcraft. However, when millions get together and create political power, I care.

Yes, I agree.

We should all be ashamed that in the age of space stations those running to be heads of state must pretend to believe (or actually believe) in the myths and legends of ancients. The most powerful people on the planet then owe debts to dogmatic, fairy tale believing crackpots. The source of this problem has to go, even if they do make charitable donations.

If I understand correctly, your proposed "solution" is to eliminate organized religion, the trouble is:

1. Your proposal is completely impractical - like it or not religion is a part of humanity and cannot be taken out.

2. Your "solution" will do more harm than good. Again, think about the societies that tried to stamp out all organized religion. And again, think about all the good religions inspire.

Yes we should all criticize all despicable deeds regardless of religion. But, please stop mocking and marginalizing all those people of faith that are progressive and standing up against the same despicable deeds that you are denouncing. What would you say to the Dalai Lama if you had the chance? Would you have marginalized Martin Luther King for his beliefs? What about all the members of this group: http://www.miic.ca/mission_statement.aspx

What about the people that live ordinary lives and go to a place of worship once a week and get comfort, or serenity, a social life, business contacts or whatever from their religion? Why do you insist on mocking them?

[Bonam]

I am also sceptical of the study and especially of the numbers that you raised:

http://www.youthandreligion.org/sites/youthandreligion.org/files/imported/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf

But without evidence to the contrary I believe the author of the Big Question article when he says:

"But there is now a large body of research which has found a strong correlation between various measures of religiosity and everything from increased completion of homework, health care utilization, donations to charity, and volunteer work, to reduced criminal behavior, suspensions from school, and smoking."

youthandreligion.org doesn't sound to me like the website of a reputable science journal. In the absence of a reason to believe a study is valid, given that is provides some results that sound outrageous (i.e. 20-37% of gr12 students using hard drugs), I'd wait for corroborating evidence, rather than assuming the study is true just because no contrary evidence has been presented. That is, just because one experiment conducted by amateurs has shown something, doesn't mean people should work on the assumption that it is true until it has been confirmed repeatedly and withstood scientific scrutiny. One of many problems with the "social sciences" as I've expressed many times is people do "studies" like this and expect others to immediately take them as truth, having totally ignored the scientific method.

What about the people that live ordinary lives and go to a place of worship once a week and get comfort, or serenity, a social life, business contacts or whatever from their religion? Why do you insist on mocking them?

Because otherwise intelligent adults that nevertheless choose to believe in a fairy tale deserve mockery. I'd mock an adult that still believes in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, too. And yes, I would agree with MightyAC - I'd want people that have this short circuit in their thought processes to the hell away from positions of power. Of course, we're in a democracy, and most people are still religious, so I don't get what I want in this case. One can only hope that the general trend of the last few centuries, of declining religiosity, continues until religious groups and institutions lose most of their remaining political influence.

[carepov]

youthandreligion.org doesn't sound to me like the website of a reputable science journal. .

You are right and I regret bringing this source into the discussion. But, it is not the first time that I have heard the claim that religious people on average live longer, happier and more virtuous lives. If I come accross a reputable study that supports this claim I will let you know.

Because otherwise intelligent adults that nevertheless choose to believe in a fairy tale deserve mockery. I'd mock an adult that still believes in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, too. And yes, I would agree with MightyAC - I'd want people that have this short circuit in their thought processes to the hell away from positions of power. Of course, we're in a democracy, and most people are still religious, so I don't get what I want in this case. One can only hope that the general trend of the last few centuries, of declining religiosity, continues until religious groups and institutions lose most of their remaining political influence.

First of all, would you mock Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama? Would you mock a "beleiver" that achieves great success in medicine, scientific research, athletics, the arts, etc...?

Second, you make a lot of assumptions about religious belief that are flat out wrong for most people.

1. Religious belief is not a short circuit in the thought process; in fact for some people their faith will enhance their thought process. Think of Newton or Michelangelo. I'm not sure if Einstein was religious but he certainly did not mock religion like you.

2. Religious people do not believe in "fairy tails". The stories that you are calling "fairy tales" are not taken literally but figuratively.

I am as much against religious extremists as you, and so are the great majority of normal religious followers. Yes of course fanatics calling on death, subversion and discrimination are to be harshly criticized and stripped of all power. But your disrespect of all religious beliefs only helps these very extremists hold onto their power and you are therefore you are working against your own aspirations.

[Mighty AC]

Yes we should all criticize all despicable deeds regardless of religion. But, please stop mocking and marginalizing all those people of faith that are progressive and standing up against the same despicable deeds that you are denouncing. What would you say to the Dalai Lama if you had the chance? Would you have marginalized Martin Luther King for his beliefs? What about all the members of this group: [/size]http://www.miic.ca/mission_statement.aspx

I think all ideas should be subjected to scrutiny. We then elevate the good ones and denounce, mock or ridicule the bad. You are trying to wrap silly ideas in other deeds to give them power, but the secondary deeds are separate acts.

Take Isaac Newton for example. The man is one of the most brilliant humans to have ever lived but we can still laugh about his belief in alchemy. The fact that the man invented calculus to solve his own physics problems doesn't somehow substantiate his belief that base metals could be turned into gold. The two ideas are separate.

Jason Giambi was a phenomenal hitter, but he also believed that wearing a woman's gold coloured thong had the power to end hitting slumps. We can appreciate his great talent and still ridicule his belief in the power of ass floss.

Similarly, we can honour Dr. King's fight for human rights while simultaneously denouncing his womanizing and religious beliefs.

What about the people that live ordinary lives and go to a place of worship once a week and get comfort, or serenity, a social life, business contacts or whatever from their religion? Why do you insist on mocking them?

I mock them like I would group of Big Foot hunters or Wiccans because their beliefs are silly. I give more attention and scorn to the religious because as a group they help provide the clout necessary for the evil acts I've discussed in previous posts.

Social and charitable groups are a great thing and they are readily available without the taint of religion. I belong to a couple myself.

[The_Squid]

I cannot think of any despicable deeds that require religious affiliation... can you please provide some examples?

Preaching birth control is the work of the devil and spreading AIDS.

Thinking that Allah will give you a place in paradise if only you would fly a plane into a building to kill infidels.

There are two modern day examples that require religious dogma to believe them and are despicable deeds.

Yes I agree. However I will add: religion/faith has, does, and will continue to inspire more charity.

It will also inspire more acts of jihad.

It will continue to inspire hatred of gay people.

Your proposal is completely impractical - like it or not religion is a part of humanity and cannot be taken out.

Your "solution" will do more harm than good. Again, think about the societies that tried to stamp out all organized religion. And again, think about all the good religions inspire.

Religion has been in decline for years. It doesn't need to disappear completely... it just needs to disappear from the public sphere.

Good will continue to be done... and it will be done without the need to convert the poor sucker that you have at your mercy because they are in desperate need of help. "Listen to my sermon first, hear about how wicked you are and how you can only be saved by my god... then you can have some tasty bread!"

[Bonam]

First of all, would you mock Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama? Would you mock a "beleiver" that achieves great success in medicine, scientific research, athletics, the arts, etc...?

As MightyAC mentioned, each aspect of a person's ideas, beliefs, etc, can be considered separately. One can admire the achievements of the people you mention while not admiring their religious belief.

I am as much against religious extremists as you, and so are the great majority of normal religious followers. Yes of course fanatics calling on death, subversion and discrimination are to be harshly criticized and stripped of all power. But your disrespect of all religious beliefs only helps these very extremists hold onto their power and you are therefore you are working against your own aspirations.

Yes, we're all against religious extremists, that is non-controversial and hardly needs to be asserted. But it is the great masses of people that are simply normal followers of religion that I find distasteful. Religion affects our education system, our healthcare policies, our scientific research, even our foreign policy, all in detrimental ways. And then there is just the frankly abominable attitude of many religious people: if there is a problem, hope that god will solve it for you. Or, if you get something good in life, go on and on about thanking god and how he is so great, rather than giving credit where credit is due.

[carepov]

I think all ideas should be subjected to scrutiny. We then elevate the good ones and denounce, mock or ridicule the bad.

BINGO! Just do the same thing for religious ideas, too (note: for this too work you will need to stop making so many assumptions about people's beliefs)

Yes, of course denounce, mock and ridicule the bad ideas.

But elevate the many good ideas/values inspired by religion:

-modesty

-respect

-non-judgemental

-generosity

-"the golden rule"

-sacrifice

-hard work

-commitment

-effectively dealing with grief and loss

-building community

You are correct, religion is not pre-requisite for any of these, but for many people, religion inspires and increases these virtues - and because of this society is better off.

[Bonam]

But elevate the many good ideas/values inspired by religion:

-modesty

Religious ideas of "modesty" mostly focus around sexual modesty, that is the repression of women, repression of natural sexual desire and activity, and the making taboo of very normal and healthy human behavior. No thanks.

-respect

Respect of what exactly? I only respect that which has earned my respect...

-non-judgemental

Eh? How is religion non-judgemental again? Implicit in many religions is the idea that non-believers will burn in hell or otherwise be punished by a malevolent supernatural being. And those religions that do really preach being "non-judgemental" (a few niche eastern religions) are often associated with pacifism, a self-defeating philosophy.

-generosity

Yes, believers are supposed to be generous in giving money to their church. Yay. And those religions which really preach a blanket idea of "generosity" are merely preaching socialism, not a fan of that either.

-"the golden rule"

The idea of the golden rule predates all currently existent religions.

-sacrifice

What's good about sacrifice? I'd just as well live in a world where people didn't think they had to sacrifice themselves for some big cause, but rather lived for their own rational self-interest, pursuing their own happiness and affording others the chance to do the same.

-hard work

Where does religion encourage hard work? Religions emphasize ideas such as the supremacy of god and the inefficacy of mankind, predestination, afterlife rewards, reincarnation, etc. None of these ideas would seem to encourage "hard work" as much as the simple knowledge that your current life is all you have, and that there exists nothing besides or beyond that which you achieve in your physical life.

-commitment

Care to elaborate?

-effectively dealing with grief and loss

By having people believe that their lost loved ones are actually still alive? Kind of like telling a kid "daddy had to go away for a while" rather than that he died? Personally, I disagree that refusing to accept reality is an effective way to "deal with grief and loss".

-building community

Usually at the expense of excluding and marginalizing people outside of that community (i.e. those who don't follow the religion of that community). Often throughout history religion uniting communities has meant espousing hatred and extermination of those outside the community.

Yes, of course denounce, mock and ridicule the bad ideas.

Done

[carepov]

Preaching birth control is the work of the devil and spreading AIDS.

Thinking that Allah will give you a place in paradise if only you would fly a plane into a building to kill infidels.

There are two modern day examples that require religious dogma to believe them and are despicable deeds.

Yes, these are indeed good examples of despicable acts that require religious dogma.

There is no doubt however that most despicable acts are independant of religious beleifs.

My argument is the benefits of religion outweigh the costs. Here is a source for real benefits of religion:

"High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with less criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have lower crime rates."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime#cite_note-EllisBeaver2009-1

[carepov]

Religious ideas of "modesty" mostly focus around sexual modesty, that is the repression of women, repression of natural sexual desire and activity, and the making taboo of very normal and healthy human behavior. No thanks.

Modesty like humbleness as opposed to pride and arrogance.

Respect of what exactly? I only respect that which has earned my respect...

Yes, this is obvious. I respect everyone unless they give me a reason to disrespect them.

Eh? How is religion non-judgemental again? Implicit in many religions is the idea that non-believers will burn in hell or otherwise be punished by a malevolent supernatural being. And those religions that do really preach being "non-judgemental" (a few niche eastern religions) are often associated with pacifism, a self-defeating philosophy.

I remember some story about Jesus standing up for a prostitute and washing her feet.

You are wrong to think that "the idea that non-believers will burn in hell or otherwise be punished by a malevolent supernatural being" is common among believers. You are being judgemental yourself.

Yes, believers are supposed to be generous in giving money to their church. Yay. And those religions which really preach a blanket idea of "generosity" are merely preaching socialism, not a fan of that either.

I guarantee you that even if you exclude donations to their church/mosque/temple religious people would give more to charity in $$ and time than non-religious people.

One of the prime tenets of Islam is to give alms to the poor.

The idea of the golden rule predates all currently existent religions.

But the idea is enhanced and strengthened by religious teachings.

What's good about sacrifice? I'd just as well live in a world where people didn't think they had to sacrifice themselves for some big cause, but rather lived for their own rational self-interest, pursuing their own happiness and affording others the chance to do the same.

Well, there is sacrifice for one's own self-interest - like saving money or getting a university degree.

There's sacrifice for one's country - like serving in the army.

Do you have kids?

Where does religion encourage hard work?

OK I'll take this one back, I have no good answer.

Care to elaborate? [commitment]

I would argue that monogamy is a benefit to society.

Dedication and loyalty are generally good traits.

By having people believe that their lost loved ones are actually still alive? Kind of like telling a kid "daddy had to go away for a while" rather than that he died? Personally, I disagree that refusing to accept reality is an effective way to "deal with grief and loss".

No, again you are assuming other people's belief's. One can accept reality AND get help and support from thier faith to move on.

Usually at the expense of excluding and marginalizing people outside of that community (i.e. those who don't follow the religion of that community). Often throughout history religion uniting communities has meant espousing hatred and extermination of those outside the community.

What you say has and does happen - but more often than not everyone is welcome into the place of worship and into the community - no questions asked.

"And the sign said, "Everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray""

Edited July 10, 2013 by carepov

[The_Squid]

Yes, these are indeed good examples of despicable acts that require religious dogma.

There is no doubt however that most despicable acts are independant of religious beleifs.

My argument is the benefits of religion outweigh the costs. Here is a source for real benefits of religion:

"High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with less criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have lower crime rates."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime#cite_note-EllisBeaver2009-1

You didn't really read the book that you cite, did you? Just looked at one Wiki reference. Sloppy.

Religious compared to non-religious, the results are "mixed" according to the book. Check your own citation if you are interested. The correlation is hardly as black & white as your Wiki quote makes it out to be.

I guarantee you that even if you exclude donations to their church/mosque/temple religious people would give more to charity in $$ and time than non-religious people.

You guarantee me of this? Really? Well, it turns out your guarantee is worthless. You are exactly wrong. Please don't guarantee me anything in the future if you really don't know what you are talking about and can't even bother to do a little tiny bit of research.

Take away churches as charities, however, and red states no longer dominate the world of donations. Instead, New England – a region that leans Democratic, with far fewer religiously affiliated Americans but with more affluent residents – catapults toward the top.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/how-religious-affiliation-affects-charitable-giving/#ixzz2Yg0NWaK3

I would argue that monogamy is a benefit to society.

Swans are monogamous... do they worship an avian Jesus?

Mormons are most certainly religious and, up until it became socially unacceptable to do so, they preached polygamy. Geez... all of a sudden God changed His mind... how did that happen??? Could it be that Mormonism is simply a bunch of men making this shit up? hmmm....

[carepov]

You didn't really read the book that you cite, did you? Just looked at one Wiki reference. Sloppy.

Religious compared to non-religious, the results are "mixed" according to the book. Check your own citation if you are interested. The correlation is hardly as black & white as your Wiki quote makes it out to be.

The reference supports my point. I did not claim it was proof. Do you have anything to refute my claim that religious people are less likely to be criminals?

You guarantee me of this? Really? Well, it turns out your guarantee is worthless. You are exactly wrong. Please don't guarantee me anything in the future if you really don't know what you are talking about and can't even bother to do a little tiny bit of research.

I will retract the certainty of my statement that was sloppy and I regret it. Your reference does not prove me wrong however. It compares red (religious) states with blue (less religious) states. How about within the blue states, who is giving more to charities (excluding religion) religious or non-religious people? The study does not address this question. I suspect that it is religious people.

Swans are monogamous... do they worship an avian Jesus?

Mormons are most certainly religious and, up until it became socially unacceptable to do so, they preached polygamy. Geez... all of a sudden God changed His mind... how did that happen??? Could it be that Mormonism is simply a bunch of men making this shit up? hmmm....

I will try to explain my point in a different way:

For example let's look at: "generosity". I hypothesize that, in a large population, there will be a normal distribution of people that are on the scale from complete selfish cheap-asses at one end to those that give 25% of their income and donate organs to strangers at the other. Now split the population into religious and non-religious. I think that the distribution would be similar but that the religious population would be on average more generous than the non-religious. Note: there are still plenty of non-religious people that are more generous than religious people.

[The_Squid]

The reference supports my point. I did not claim it was proof. Do you have anything to refute my claim that religious people are less likely to be criminals?

The reference, as it is in Wiki, supports your point. Did you read any of the book? I went to that section and there is a lot more ambiguity in the book than the one line that you quote. Go read your own citation...

From your own citation, page 114:

Section 5.3.6 Religious Compared to Non-Religious

...the findings have been somewhat mixed. For officially detected offending, the non-religious are less involved than Christians but more involved than Jews.

I suspect that it is religious people.

I suspect you are talking out your ass with no citations to back up your supposition. Here is one that refutes it:

In our society, people over 65 are the ones who command much of the disposable income and who, if they are retired, have plenty of time for volunteering. Consistent with this thesis, when age is statistically controlled, there is no difference between religious and nonreligious people in the value of their gifts to secular charities.

What superficially seems like clear evidence that religion makes people more charitable turns out, on detailed analysis, to be further evidence that religion has little to do with ethical conduct. There is no consistent difference between religious and nonreligious people in their ethical conduct - at least if one compares apples with apples.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200905/are-religious-people-more-ethical-in-their-conduct-ii

I will try to explain my point in a different way:

For example let's look at: "generosity".

Religion does not make one more generous. See link above. Also, religion does not make one monogamous or "more committed" as you claim it does. At least, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that it does.

Quit while you're behind.