Post Any Evidence For God Here

[MeDeFe]

I don't care
disagree with what Kant said
universalizability (i.e. the categorical imperative)

You know what, you win the debate. I will stop arguing with you.

[john9blue]

see, all you have to do is ask the right questions and they will not be able to do anything...

[crispybits]

I don't care
disagree with what Kant said
universalizability (i.e. the categorical imperative)

You know what, you win the debate. I will stop arguing with you.

Exactly how I felt during the 5 pages of my "thought experiment"

[GreecePwns]

there have been societies throughout history without restrictions on who can practice medicine or what kind of medicine can be practiced. there have also been societies with a heavily socialized approach to medicine. there have NOT been any successful societies that have come close to being completely free of religion. i believe that itself qualifies as evidence against the idea that a society without religious morals could thrive.

And at one point or another there was a point where that argument can be applied to literally everything, so that argument is a really weak one. Why do anything innovative ever, then?

Instead, can you debate the actual merits of the idea? You don't seem to find anything wrong with the claim that there is a point where people will ditch otherworldly motives for altruistic behavior and solely rely on worldly ones, that point being X amount of worldly incentives toward altruistic behavior, and Y amount of awareness of said incentives. If you agree with this, then once X and Y are reached, religion has a net negative value on society. It would have nothing special to compel others toward altruism, and only the negative factors will remain.

[PLAYER57832]

Whether or not light is constant and always has been... would it be wrong to create Adam in an adult body surrounded by fruit bearing trees that were less than a week old?

Your "argument", once again doesn't even make sense. The Bible does not say this happened, neither does science. Look to where you think this is said to find out how it could be. Most of us will say it did not happen that way.

BUT.... per why not evolution in this thread... there are several already dealing with this.

[john9blue]

there have been societies throughout history without restrictions on who can practice medicine or what kind of medicine can be practiced. there have also been societies with a heavily socialized approach to medicine. there have NOT been any successful societies that have come close to being completely free of religion. i believe that itself qualifies as evidence against the idea that a society without religious morals could thrive.

And at one point or another there was a point where that argument can be applied to literally everything, so that argument is a really weak one. Why do anything innovative ever, then?

since when is atheism innovative?

i thought atheism was the "default"?

in fact, i thought most atheists considered newborn babies to be atheists? lol.

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

Instead, can you debate the actual merits of the idea? You don't seem to find anything wrong with the claim that there is a point where people will ditch otherworldly motives for altruistic behavior and solely rely on worldly ones, that point being X amount of worldly incentives toward altruistic behavior, and Y amount of awareness of said incentives. If you agree with this, then once X and Y are reached, religion has a net negative value on society. It would have nothing special to compel others toward altruism, and only the negative factors will remain.

there isn't one single point where this happens. everything is situational and everything varies from person to person. and i don't see why there couldn't be both supernatural and natural motives for being virtuous, even within the same person.

[chang50]

there have been societies throughout history without restrictions on who can practice medicine or what kind of medicine can be practiced. there have also been societies with a heavily socialized approach to medicine. there have NOT been any successful societies that have come close to being completely free of religion. i believe that itself qualifies as evidence against the idea that a society without religious morals could thrive.

And at one point or another there was a point where that argument can be applied to literally everything, so that argument is a really weak one. Why do anything innovative ever, then?

since when is atheism innovative?

i thought atheism was the "default"?

in fact, i thought most atheists considered newborn babies to be atheists? lol.

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

Instead, can you debate the actual merits of the idea? You don't seem to find anything wrong with the claim that there is a point where people will ditch otherworldly motives for altruistic behavior and solely rely on worldly ones, that point being X amount of worldly incentives toward altruistic behavior, and Y amount of awareness of said incentives. If you agree with this, then once X and Y are reached, religion has a net negative value on society. It would have nothing special to compel others toward altruism, and only the negative factors will remain.

there isn't one single point where this happens. everything is situational and everything varies from person to person. and i don't see why there couldn't be both supernatural and natural motives for being virtuous, even within the same person.

For the umpteenth time John whether god exists or not is a question that is,totally,100%, seperate from the question of whether belief in his existence is beneficial to society.You appear fixated to the point of obsession with linking the two.

[john9blue]

For the umpteenth time John whether god exists or not is a question that is,totally,100%, seperate from the question of whether belief in his existence is beneficial to society.You appear fixated to the point of obsession with linking the two.

the current discussion is about religion's effect on society. if you don't like it then don't participate. i'm not trying to prove that god exists here.

[chang50]

For the umpteenth time John whether god exists or not is a question that is,totally,100%, seperate from the question of whether belief in his existence is beneficial to society.You appear fixated to the point of obsession with linking the two.

the current discussion is about religion's effect on society. if you don't like it then don't participate. i'm not trying to prove that god exists here.

Allowing that the discussion has meandered from the OP,can I ask you if you think there is any direct link between a religions effect on a society and the truth claims of that religion?To me they are wholly seperate.

[GreecePwns]

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

Because people throughout history have used otherworldly causes to explain mundane natural events? Because in many societies open rejection of the religion of choice has severe negative consequences in the family and in society? Various causes, none of which mean it is a more effective way of extracting altruism from individuals.

Societies that have been successful throughout history were successful on the back of military conquest, specific scientific innovations, exploitation of rich natural resource endowments, a cultural or intellectual Golden Age, or other causes. That religion played a part in the society does not mean it was the cause of the success. How does your explanation account for the entire Enlightenment period of history?

there isn't one single point where this happens. everything is situational and everything varies from person to person. and i don't see why there couldn't be both supernatural and natural motives for being virtuous, even within the same person.

As I said before, in capitalism monetary transactions aren't done primarily in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They're done in order to add value (monetary and otherwise) to a group or individual. In capitalism, this belief trumps any religious belief in the overwhelming majority of economic actors. Are you willing to say that 50% + 1 of people in modern society think otherwise?

Are you willing to say that the majority of rich people who just happen to be Christian donate a part of their fortune do so more in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ than in the name of the Almighty Tax Deduction (a worldly incentive)?

Are you willing to say that the majority of college kids who just happen to be Christian donate a part of their time do so more in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ than in the name of the Divine Recommendation Letter (a worldly incentive)?

Are you willing to say that the majority of people who had a loved one die from a disease and just happen to be Christian who donate a part of their time do so more in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ than in the name of the finding a cure from a disease (a worldly disease)?

Which reason comes first?

[Haggis_McMutton]

religion is not the ONLY thing keeping society civilized, but it helps. as time goes on, people are getting smarter and seeing more and being able to further grasp the implications of their actions, which generally leads to a more ethical society.

i don't think it's fair to use the "decline of religion" as a reason for our increasing cultural empathy, because that's a pretty recent "thing".

Ok, let me try to make my point as clear as possible.

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

As for your first sentence, you seem to be agreeing with me. If people are getting "smarter" then religion is becoming less necessary, right? (except it's not "smarter", it's just the culture that's changing)

no, but once again technology allows me to make better cultural choices. if i used an argument in the 16th century that was valid but based on false premises, then i can use it now when i have correct premises based on our knowledge of history.

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

My point is: Culture evolves. The best systems change based on these changes. Do you think a democratic republic could have been a big world power 1000 years ago? No, that system would have been laughable at the time. Now it's the norm though and suggesting we should go back to monarchies is laughable.

So this argument you are trying to make stands on nothing. There haven't been succesfull religion-free societies in the past because we were not yet ready for that, just like 1000 years ago we were not ready for democracy or universal human rights.
We are now ready (in first world countries anyway).
Besides, it's pretty much becoming the norm in first world countries with the US being the only one notable for kicking and screaming about this.

[tzor]

i thought atheism was the "default"?

in fact, i thought most atheists considered newborn babies to be atheists?

No, Agnosticism is the "default" or the happy medium. One simply doesn't know.

New born babies haven't even thought about it.
Then they get breast fed.

[tzor]

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

But is this really a fact? There is an interesting book review about the book The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T. Cavanaugh. It argues that you can't study violence in Europe as a function of religion alone but as a combination of religion, political and social forces.

Exposing the myth of religious violence means something else: the careful demolition of the variously argued idea that in ostensible contrast to rational, modern, secular ideologies, there is something distinctively disruptive, divisive, and dangerous about religion that makes it, across historical epochs and cultures and peoples, inherently prone to irrational, intractable violence. Because of this, the argument goes, religion must be resolutely corralled and controlled by the benign secularism of the liberal state, if necessary by justifiable, pacifying violence of the state’s own.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

But is this really a fact? There is an interesting book review about the book The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T. Cavanaugh. It argues that you can't study violence in Europe as a function of religion alone but as a combination of religion, political and social forces.

Exposing the myth of religious violence means something else: the careful demolition of the variously argued idea that in ostensible contrast to rational, modern, secular ideologies, there is something distinctively disruptive, divisive, and dangerous about religion that makes it, across historical epochs and cultures and peoples, inherently prone to irrational, intractable violence. Because of this, the argument goes, religion must be resolutely corralled and controlled by the benign secularism of the liberal state, if necessary by justifiable, pacifying violence of the state’s own.

I'm not sure which part of my statement you're arguing against.
I'm not trying to prove any kind of causal relationship here. I'm not trying to argue that religon is "disruptive, divisive, and dangerous" (though that might be a different interesting discussion).

John is making the argument that religion causes us to be civilised. I'm just trying to refute that.
I think that in modern society religion has no significant effect on violence rates, neither positive nor negative.

[Lootifer]

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

But is this really a fact? There is an interesting book review about the book The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T. Cavanaugh. It argues that you can't study violence in Europe as a function of religion alone but as a combination of religion, political and social forces.

Exposing the myth of religious violence means something else: the careful demolition of the variously argued idea that in ostensible contrast to rational, modern, secular ideologies, there is something distinctively disruptive, divisive, and dangerous about religion that makes it, across historical epochs and cultures and peoples, inherently prone to irrational, intractable violence. Because of this, the argument goes, religion must be resolutely corralled and controlled by the benign secularism of the liberal state, if necessary by justifiable, pacifying violence of the state’s own.

I'm not sure which part of my statement you're arguing against.
I'm not trying to prove any kind of causal relationship here. I'm not trying to argue that religon is "disruptive, divisive, and dangerous" (though that might be a different interesting discussion).

John is making the argument that religion causes us to be civilised. I'm just trying to refute that.
I think that in modern society religion has no significant effect on violence rates, neither positive nor negative.

Unless you live on the Gaza strip.

[tzor]

Here is the quote that I was refuting (in bold).

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

You cannot cite an period in European history where a decline in "religion" was not accompanied by declines in social and political conditions at the same time. Such a period just does not exist.

John is making the argument that religion causes us to be civilised. I'm just trying to refute that.

I would not say that religion causes us to be civilized; I would say that some religious people can put a damper on our natural tendency to be uncivilized. They are generally in the minority.

I think that in modern society religion has no significant effect on violence rates, neither positive nor negative.

I would suggest that religious protesters generally are less violent than non religious protesters. The union protests in the past few years are vastly more violent than the pro-life marches in DC for the past few decades. I don't think that would impact violence rates as such people are generally non violent in the first place.

[Symmetry]

Here is the quote that I was refuting (in bold).

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

You cannot cite an period in European history where a decline in "religion" was not accompanied by declines in social and political conditions at the same time. Such a period just does not exist.

John is making the argument that religion causes us to be civilised. I'm just trying to refute that.

I would not say that religion causes us to be civilized; I would say that some religious people can put a damper on our natural tendency to be uncivilized. They are generally in the minority.

I think that in modern society religion has no significant effect on violence rates, neither positive nor negative.

I would suggest that religious protesters generally are less violent than non religious protesters. The union protests in the past few years are vastly more violent than the pro-life marches in DC for the past few decades. I don't think that would impact violence rates as such people are generally non violent in the first place.

This is incorrect, a lot of what I do relates to English 17th century history. After the Civil War, there was a period of deep religious conflict and essentially a dictator state of Puritanism. Ask an Irish person what they think about Oliver Cromwell for an interesting conversation about religious fanatics.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Here is the quote that I was refuting (in bold).

I'm not claiming decline of religion has caused decline of violence. I'm claiming that the fact that decline of religion has been correlated to decline of violence proves that religion is no longer a major factor determining violence rates. It may have been in the past. I don't know,

You cannot cite an period in European history where a decline in "religion" was not accompanied by declines in social and political conditions at the same time. Such a period just does not exist.

John is making the argument that religion causes us to be civilised. I'm just trying to refute that.

I would not say that religion causes us to be civilized; I would say that some religious people can put a damper on our natural tendency to be uncivilized. They are generally in the minority.

I think that in modern society religion has no significant effect on violence rates, neither positive nor negative.

I would suggest that religious protesters generally are less violent than non religious protesters. The union protests in the past few years are vastly more violent than the pro-life marches in DC for the past few decades. I don't think that would impact violence rates as such people are generally non violent in the first place.

Ok, so before I go digging up statistics, let me make sure I understand your position.

This whole discussion started because John said "what if religions aren't made by any god? what if they still have value despite that?".
I believe they probably had value at some point as an early substitute for science/philosophy but 50 years after we sent a man to the moon they are not needed anymore. (and because they encourage irrationality by making "faith" a virtue are actually harmful, but that's probably a different discussion)

Are you arguing the same point as john, that we still need religion. If so, what do we need it for? Do you think it's still a big factor in keeping violence rates down or something of that nature?

Or are you simply taking issue with that single point of mine and don't care about the larger debate?

[tzor]

Are you arguing the same point as john, that we still need religion. If so, what do we need it for? Do you think it's still a big factor in keeping violence rates down or something of that nature?

To be honest, I'm not sure what I am arguing for; it comes down to a complex definition of words. I happen to be deeply religious, but you are asking what we need, which is completely different.

What we need is the attitude that was expressed by the founding fathers, who were heavily influenced by the age of enlightenment. This lead to the notion that there was a higher law than just the brute force of might makes right. Jefferson in the declaration would refer to "the laws of nature and of nature's God," not per se as an appeal to the Christian Religion, but to the notion that there were inalienable rights that belonged to man not because some man gave them to other men, but because it was given to them because it was fundamental to the nature of man.

To establish that there is a higher standard other than the needs of the first person; to establish that there is a greater law than might makes right; does put a limiting factor on ones actions. To abandon that principle does allow violence to enter in because one turns ones focus towards the needs of the self and will obtain those needs to matter what the cost to others may be because those costs are no longer considered by that person.

To this end it is possible to abuse any structure to obtain that goal, even "religious" structures.

[GreecePwns]

Jefferson in the declaration would refer to "the laws of nature and of nature's God," not per se as an appeal to the Christian Religion, but to the notion that there were inalienable rights that belonged to man not because some man gave them to other men, but because it was given to them because it was fundamental to the nature of man.

This claim is unfalsifiable. How does Jefferson know what the Almighty Stuff wants for us? Does he have access to knowledge that we don't? How?

In truth, there are no natural "rights," just privileges that a society agrees to give to its members through a social contract. The right to life and the right to bear arms are on the same level, merely an agreement by American society to not kill each other barring certain exceptions (and punish those who do so outside the realm of the law) and an agreement by American society to allow the ownership of certain weapons.

Notice how quickly these "rights" evaporate when the federal government deems it necessary: the killing of an American citizen when they're deemed enemies of the state, how X gun is allowed but Y gun isn't.

That these "rights" are amendable contradicts directly the idea that they something given to us by the Almighty Stuff, let alone anything other than privileges supported by an overwhelming majority.

[Gillipig]

Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!

[crispybits]

As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes

[PLAYER57832]

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

I have to interject here, one reason there is religion in every society is that any strong believe is or becomes religion, including atheism.

And, as has been noted many times, there is more than one atheistic religion. I think greenspwn is arguing as if religion and belief in a particular God are equivalent.

[Gillipig]

As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes

Don't forget Lord of the rings!


Wow I guess Frodo really did save middle earth. I have new found respect for him now that I know what he did for us!
Maybe he's this "Jesus" character people have been talking about!?

[tzor]

This claim is unfalsifiable. How does Jefferson know what the Almighty Stuff wants for us? Does he have access to knowledge that we don't? How?

In truth, there are no natural "rights," just privileges that a society agrees to give to its members through a social contract.

I never said he did. The fundamental problem with the social contract model is that it quickly breaks down to the argument of might makes right. The appeal to a "natural" law (which is no less an appeal to any "law" such as the laws of physics) is an appeal that individual rights are not based on the whims of the mob majority or the strongest, most charismatic person in the group. The latter will always lead to despotism and violence.

This was a major principle of the age of enlightenment. One doesn't determine the laws of physics by who has the biggest army, or my majority vote, but by careful observation on the nature of man. That nature hasn't changed much in a few hundred years (perhaps a few thousand but I doubt it even then).

That these "rights" are amendable contradicts directly the idea that they something given to us by the Almighty Stuff, let alone anything other than privileges supported by an overwhelming majority.

Than this alienable rights are no rights at all; they exist at the pleasure of the mob/despot. Welcome to slavery.