dan964
what
I wouldn't know. But at this point, just as science cannot explain certain things, and it would silly to presume God's existence, so I think at this point, the existence of a supposed genetic influence. This may help you with (yes it is wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
which might be a more tenable explanation, than simple reduction to genetic and chemical processes.
I am kind of glad that your kind of explanation doesn't fit current evidence. Otherwise the same treatment provided to those with the "gay gene" should be afforded to those with the "religious gene", which would shut down all debate on this thread and any reasonable discourse on the topic (which has kind of happened because of the prominent popularity of the former in some circles, regardless of whether it has or has not been verified as such)
Does it really matter? My point still stands regardless of how well or how poorly I phrased it.
Yes I find that not every religion makes positive advancements, radical Islam certainly doesn't.
It seems to be just dismissing all things. Also my claim was more explicit than general. I agree that some religions have it completely wrong; yet I can still respectively debate/disagree without need for violence, killings or blackmail.
I don't dispute that. You don't seem to argue this consistently, but ok.
I would think that tends to send something about the nature of people, rather than the nature of religion/ideology/anti-religion etc.
So this is the real heart of your claim. Is it strictly a generalisation? Even then my original example was a particular religion.
Atheism and the advance of secularism has been used as bigotry against religious people.
Conclusion: all humans are bigots someway or another; to some other group of people.
Again another opium for the masses kind of statement.
Just for the info seekers: http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm on the statement.
To quote a response:
"Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society."
I genuinely think that your claim about religion being a crutch/or like opium only stems out of a lack of a belief in god's existence and/or a firm belief that God does not exist. (belief=faith here)
Are you sure you meant incidental: "happening as a result of"?? Again a claim, provide an example at the least (I cannot think of any, I am sure there are).
Also 'good' is so subjective (sarcasm) in today's society.
Yes some religion has indeed borrowed practices etc. But you will have to provide examples, and unlike the general scope of the debate, where claims are more hotly contested and possibly harder to verify in some measures (depending on your definitions/limitations and the like, which has already been discussed enough in history/this thread)... claims about the origins of one's belief system are more likely going to have more easily verifiable claims about it.
No it is not, well spotted, but it was somewhat "secular equivalent" in the 2nd century for instance before Constantine.
A lot of secular movements either find their origins in some aberration of the Christianity teaching (or what is typically characterised as Christian teaching); while some tend to overlook that in their development to paganism...
A lot of skepticism and atheistic thought, came out in reaction to parts of Christianity and Islam. My point is that regardless of who you claim has made the most significant contribution (which again is subjective, I recall a previous discussion with DrSoccerball on this with yourself from memory somewhere on this thread); that without the present of religion; or the counter-reaction to religion; then such changes wouldn't have happened.
Here is an interesting article, not that I hold much to opinion:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/
===
So there is no indication of whether the world would have been better off...
Your underlying argument seems to be:
1. God does not exist (topic of discussion - debated lots)
2. Religion exists and makes claims about God (known fact)
3. Because of (1), there must be some explanation for why people are religious (3)
4. Religion is opiate for the masses etc. etc.
The problem with is that (1) does not imply (3) or anything remotely similar. If we can make the argument, that Paradoxica has done, (against one of the arguments for God's existence called the ontological argument from memory), that the universe does not need an explanation for its existence, why would the presence of one subset of a subset of the existence of the universe.
Last edited:
