Positive Atheism

[tackattack]

getting back to point I believe the original question was religions contributions to society.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining, creating mythos/ religion. That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude. I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

The first and second great awakening. Leading to much better communication between communities and the need for roads. The temperance movement. Reformation.

Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Thomas Gallaudet, many religions have opened up lots of school, increasing the opportunity for higher education.

Abolition of Slavery. Assisting in women's rights.

Here is a small reference for gender equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Norwich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism


While I don't assert that religion has done a lot of harm to society, I'm sure a predominant amount of atheists on here can list the negative impacts. I was just atempting to round out the list from a more well rounded perspective.

In science (except for mathematics) it is indeed based on observation. What makes you think it isn't.

I'm glad we agree. That was in reference to the cause and effect of God.

That would be books on quantum physics (QM) and nuclear physics (NP). I can point you to some internet sources though. Be aware however that causation in philosophy has multiple definitions. Uncaused in the sense I use here is that there is no particular identifiable event triggering the effect. The most notable uncaused phenomena are virtual particle pair creation (QM), verified through the Casimir-effect and nuclear decay (NP).

Thank you I will read it over the holiday

Yes, you implicitly did by stating "In our universe cause preempts effect." (underling by me). And rephrasing your statement to "In and outside our universe cause preempts effect." makes it nonsensical, since it is not clear what outside the universe means and if your cauation rule applies on the treshold between inside and outside.There you go. If god is outside the ruleset, than you cannot apply the ruleset to god and your claim about causation does not apply.

I am unfarmiliar withe the definitions and application of all of the logical fallacies used in debate, so let me restate. In our know universe it is widely accepted that cause preempts effect (with a few acceptions). I define our known universe as the things we have discovered in our universe. If something outside of our known universe it has the potential to be explained by the rules science, reason and logic can measure. If it is outside of our universe, even the rules we haven't come up with yet would not be forced to apply. If (from a perspective within our known universe) God created our universe, the first action of our known universe yould be an effect of God's cause. Is that any clearer?

No you misunderstood. What I know of evolution was that we developed from primates, started walking upright and formed communities. Logically due to our upright nature and less defensive capabilities developed strong communities ties leading to communal morality and ethics. I'm agreeing that evolution contributed to communal morality.

OK

at ;east we are in agreeance on some things.

What are you referring to?

per your request I was suggesting we leave God and divinity out of the conversation as well as my lack of debating skills. Let's just stick to religions.

Mormonism is out the window, right after the indoor plumbing stuff. What religious movement(s) were early adopters of women's rights?

So a strong independant community is not a benefit to society, or you're not willing to discuss it? See above for the latter half.

What is a psychological aversion?

What is a psychological aversion?

Perhaps it is like a physiological aversion (such as nausea?) only more "mental"?

EvF

That would otherwise noted as a chip on the shoulder, an axe to grind, a pessimistic penchant for pietism, etc.