as much as i hate splitting a post into a dozen different quotes, you've made it impossible to avoid. so, here goes...
I don't blame the fairy tales. I blame the people who are incapable of understanding fact from fiction partly because of those same fairy tales. Do you understand? A persons organized religion rejects any and all claims that do not reinforce that religion, so it follows that a moral claim based in science that contradicts someones organized religion -homosexuality- will be discarded, regardless of the evidence that supports it.
Without these false justifications organized religions provide to people, they would need to come up with some other kind of justification for waging war, and there is no logical justification for killing millions of innocent people.
When was the last time country with a high percentage of atheists declared war?
so are you blaming people's ignorance or are you blaming the false justifications of religion? you've got me a bit confused here and i think that stems from your own confusion. your bringing up the subject of homosexuality is a perfect example of this confusion. you would love to blame society's anti-gay prejudice on religion, but i think you are putting the cart before the horse. do you honestly believe that it is religion that is to blame for this prejudice or, as is much more plausible, that it is a societal bias against a practice that clearly goes against our physical designs and has merely been placed in the dogma of our religions? our tendency toward religious mania may predate any present civilization, but our physical design and our understanding of its purposes goes back much further than our first thoughts of mysticism.
so too does our ability to justify our aggressions. we have never really had any need to come up with a "logical" justification for our violent natures. our needs and desires have always provided us with ample justification for even the most vile atrocities. the desire to expand our influence, the need to gather more resources to provide for ourselves and our families, the simple desire to gain power over others have all been reason enough for war, genocide and myriad other acts of savagery. you ask what atheist nation has ever gone to war. well there have been so few truly atheist nations, since religion pre-dates our ability to build societies capable of what we would consider war, that this is a difficult task, but it certainly isn't impossible. quite a few modern totalitarian socialist nations have attempted to stamp out religion and this certainly hasn't blunted their thirst for warfare. the stalinist soviet union used the ideology of its secular revolution to wage many a war across the globe. look to any strong-arm regime that replaces religion with a cult of personality surrounding its leader for quite a few other examples of just how violent an atheist society can be.
you consistently speak of religion as this monolithic, unchanging monstrosity and that just isn't the case. constant change can be seen in even the most adamant fundamentalist sects. this is because even the fantasy based dogma of religion
must reflect the society surrounding it. there is simply
nothing that doesn't change. it wasn't so long ago that churches were led exclusively by men and now we see more and more women in positions of power within the church hierarchy. as society has become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, so too have many religious institutions. the history of religion is filled with such changes, it merely takes time for such established doctrines to catch up to the evolving societies around them.
So you're inferring that most nations that give charity or enhance the lives of those around us have a majority population that is Christian?
We are more 'generous' because we have more to give, not because more of us are Christian.
no, my noting that this nation is predominantly christian was merely in answer to your continued attacks on christianity in particular. most every religion has within it the seeds of such charitable ambitions. all that i am proposing is that by easing the formal restrictions of the traditional church and still maintaining its charitable spirit, this nation has allowed religion to evolve into a more caring creature and that that creature has infected the population as a whole. you, on the other hand, would completely ignore that influence. relying wholly on our wealth as the impetus for this generosity does not answer the question of why this nation's people are willing to give a higher
percentage of their wealth, it only explains why they are able to give more.
i have to admit that i have been unable to find my original source for this information. i remember it was a rather torturous path that led to it and that it took some precise wording to find the documentation, but i'm sure you could find it if you bothered to try. no, i don't expect you to take my word for it. in fact, i don't really care whether you believe me or not. it is a minor thing, but i'll pm it to you if i come across it again.
You said "religion has never directly caused a single death" Heis and I brought up cases of religious neglect. Do you concede you were wrong about that?
do we blame medical science for each botched diagnosis or ignorant practitioner? why should we blame religion as a whole for the ignorance of some of its adherents? the history of science has included such atrocities as vivisection and purposeful neglect, but you still glorify its logic. if we look hard enough at even the finest acts of man we can find some hint of cruelty and failure. do you really expect religion to be any different? it seems you hold religion to some higher standard than the rest of man's accomplishments and i find this deplorable. every single attack on religion i have read in this thread has used the same disingenuous tactic, using its own claims of infallibility against it. we know that religion is made by man and we know that man is fallible. so how can his creation not be imperfect? sure, it's a human conceit, but it is far from man's greatest sin. so yes, you might consider me incorrect. it wouldn't be the first time, but, once again, it is far from my greatest sin.
Is teaching someone creationism teaching them to be ignorant? Should a parent/teacher have the "right" to teach this to their children/students?
again with the higher expectations. should parents have the right to teach their children their own view of the world? of course they should. should state sponsored educators be given the power to indoctrinate their charges against the will of the parents of those children? of course not. the passing down of tradition from one generation to the next is the prerogative of parenthood and even the most foolish traditions must be allowed. we are all taught a certain amount of ignorance and it certainly isn't restricted to the realm of religion. you may not like what your neighbor teaches his children, but it is, quite frankly, none of your damn business. those children will grow into adulthood and make their own decisions about the nature of the universe. some will find fault with the fantasies of their parents and others will continue on as they were taught. this is the nature of the growth of the individual.
i really don't have much of a problem with the childish ignorance of religion. i know that advancing human knowledge is important, but not everyone is up to that task. there will always be those who find comfort in fairy tales and that just might be best for them. the majority of the human race lives in ignorance, but that really has little effect on those who strive for knowledge. of those that eschew the rigors of scientific endeavor, some few might well serve to advance the ethical nature of mankind and this should be seen as every bit as important as discovering the origins of the universe. after all, big bang or big miracle makes very little difference to the average joe on the street.
Until you reveal your method of measuring the positive impact Christianity has had on the western world against a world where Christianity never existed, I'm afraid all I'm left with is speculation and opinion.
of course it's all opinion and speculation. man's need to explain the world around him has led him down many a false trail and the concepts of our spirituality have been with us since the dawn of time. all we can do is theorize what a world without religion might be, taking into account the tendencies we see in the world around us and trying to minimize the effect of our own biases. i dare say that you have failed to minimize your anti-religious bias and let your own zeal color your view of religion's history. on the other hand, i have tried to take my own atheism out of the picture to attain a more rational view of that history. while you cling to the false notion that men are capable of being wholly rational and altruistic in their outlook, i see the savagery that exists in our so-called civilized society and realize that many are in dire need of an overseer they cannot influence and from who's scrutiny they cannot hide.
pad, please quit doing this to me. by cutting my post up into a thousand little quotes, you've forced me to compose this damn opus and i just don't have the stamina for it any more. you know perfectly well that i only come here when i'm high and that makes it nearly impossible for me to post those insignificant one-liners that many here are so fond of. are you purposely trying to drive me insane or are you just as crazy as i am?