Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Magnanimity was the word i was going for.  I was trying to say my overt goodness would convince him as a sarcastic response to his sarcastic comment.

Though I have made the mistake before of confusing magnanimity with magnitude.

---

Without arguing all of the various assertions I have a few general responses:

1.  Based on what is expressed it may be said that atheism is practiced by those who are not in need of religion.  I have heard it said religion is a crutch and I would not deny this assertion.  Naturally a crutch is a tool to be used when needed, a hindrance when not, and may cause further injury if used improperly.  However because a small minority are not in need of a thing is not to say the majority is no longer in need of said thing or that another minority is not in need of it.

2.  What is implied by your statement is that because religion has many of the less desirable people of society as it members then religion is the cause of their undesirability does not account for how many "get" religion in the pokey and is akin to stating that AA is making alcoholics or hospitals are making people sick.  After all there are so many sick people associated with hospitals.  Nonetheless I would be remiss in saying that religion is not often used to justify conduct.  But, I think we would be mistaken in saying that devoid of religion people would not engage in that conduct.  Eliminating religion does not necessarily eliminate the conduct, though it will eliminate that particular justification.  Unfortunately any example of this (communistic societies) will be skewed by the severity of punishment for crimes by the state.  In which case it is hard to distinguish if the impact is theistical or judicial.

3.  Furthermore, I doubt many of the people who are imprisoned for some crime based the commission of said crime upon their theistic beliefs, teaching, or understanding.  Admittedly their are a few who are doing because the dog told them too.  Usually those claiming the dog or god told them to do something are rare and far between or commonly feigning insanity (with an even small few actually being insane).

4.  In regard to higher education it is the Catholic church that established the institution of higher education and has been its most ardent supporter for millennia.  It may be said that the majority of scientific, social, and political advancements in the world have been made by religious people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#...iversities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

5.  As such world history would support that theistical influence has done more to promote and advance humanity than atheistic influence.

---

Thanks for the reply. Not much to disagree with in your item one. But no, I don't necessarily blame religion for the state of the people who are attracted to religion, although, religion may be to blame in some cases. It's variable (depending on circumstances). In the case of people indoctrinated in a faith system from birth, religion has to take some part of the blame for their character (even if only a small part of the blame). If someone gravitates to religion because they're a drug addict or alcoholic, obviously we can't blame religion for their condition. 

Yes, many scientists (in past decades and centuries) were religious (Mendel, Newton, the list is long). But at that time virtually everyone was religious, and pioneers in science were no exception. But I don't think that says anything about anything. 

The fact that religious people have exerted a great influence over events in western history shouldn't surprise anyone (atheism, in the form we see today, is a relatively recent development, even Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume, who was accused of being an atheist, vigorously opposed that classification, the closest to atheism you had back then was deism). And pointing out that the Catholics built universities is also not very compelling. Rome built the architecture of western civilization, much of which still exists to this very day, but that doesn't mean Rome wasn't a brutal imperialistic empire, they clearly were, their accomplishments notwithstanding. 

1. We are rather agreed on point one as by your argument of indoctrination we may say that the socioeconomic system that people are indoctrinated into from birth takes part of the blame as well (if not the bulk of said blame).

2. The third link was specifically in regards to scientist who chose to be catholic clerics and were no simply catholic because everyone was some religion at the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists). What it does show is that the church has a history of highly educated people. I now the desire is to focus on the uneducated portion and I would agree with such focus if the church commanded or compelled them to be uneducated. However, the church does not do so. To this day there are many education centers maintained and established by the church. Believers are encouraged to attend catechism and learn the theology of the faith as well as attend higher institutions of learning. The general catholic belief being that truth supports truth and god maybe further understood in the understanding of his creation (which includes our person).

3. Establishments of Universities (hospitals and orphanages) by the church (most of which are still in existence today) is to serve as proof of the churches efforts to educate people throughout history. Prior to most institutions created by the church education was private and only paid for the elite by the elite. The church is the first formal institution to promote the education of laypersons and the education of women. The history just does not support your assertion that religion endeavors to keep people ignorant as a common way to get a free education was to join the church, because the church wanted its clergy educated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...1600_AD.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_...es#History

4. Regarding your argument of Rome. It is one of the constructive fallacies. It appears that you are doing the fallacy of composition. Which is to say that a condition of a part of the whole is the condition of the whole. Because the teeth in the emoticon are white this emoticon is white It also seems you believe a purely atheistic society would be far from brutal or imperialistic (which I take you to mean top down oppressive). Again history is not on your side for this argument as exhibited by the various atheistic communist nations which have existed throughout the world (which I do not think you would consider bastions of freedom, understanding, and pacifism).