Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[nihilistcat]

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).

I was arguing by analogy (it wasn't a fallacy of composition). My point was, just because something can lay claim to some good accomplishments, it doesn't necessarily imply that its good (in its totality) or that the good outweighs the bad. Sure, the catholic church built universities, hospitals, and pretty churches. I suppose these are good things (although we can debate whether or not these things would have eventually happened anyway, although it's not a great debate, because postulating a counterfactual is always conjecture). 

We live in a reactionary world. Our military intervention in the mid east is driven by resource domination (petroleum). What type of reaction to our intervention could we expect if religion were removed from the picture? Would we see secular forms of terrorism instead of religious based terrorism? In the absence of a catholic church, would something like the inquisition have occurred anyway (cruelty certainly doesn't require a religious motivation)? All questions which are impossible to answer, nonetheless, I don't see much use in arguing on behalf of atheism based on the historical flaws and atrocities of religion. So that is not the thrust of my argument. 

My gripe with religion begins with the fact that it's bullshit. So we have billions of people, including the vast majority of Americans, basing decisions, public policies, even decisions concerning academic training and investments in scientific research, on bullshit. Does this hold back our potential? I believe it most certainly does. As a biologist, I see so much potential (from curing cancer to extending lifespan to developing more advanced viral therapies, manufacturing organs instead of relying on transplants, stem cell therapies that have almost limitless potential, and so on), and even though we're an extremely wealthy society, we don't invest nearly enough in these things, and I believe part of the reason is religiosity (where we divert and waste so much energy and resources). 

To what extent are people influenced by a belief that they'll be whisked away to a celestial theme park when they die, instead of the far more likely reality (decomposition and then worm food). Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine how attitudes would be different concerning everything ranging from scientific research to global warming to space exploration and teaching science to our kids? Does religion make people more prone to manipulation? I'd say if you're willing to believe something as far fetched as the fantastic legends contained in most holy books, then you're almost certainly more gullible than those who take a more skeptical view towards these claims. And gullibility has real political consequences. 

And of course religion, particularly more fundamentalist brands of religion, have to be hostile towards education. A truly well educated population will be a less religious population (there is a strong positive correlation between religious skepticism and academic accomplishment). Religion holds us back in so many ways, and I'd say in ways that far outweigh the good religion does throughout the world. Catholic charities has been in places like Africa for decades, but beyond providing some acute relief, they really haven't accomplished anything (the poverty and malnutrition rates are still terrible, and it's compounded by the fact that the catholic church refuses to promote safe sexual practices in an environment where one of the primary public health problems is sexually transmitted disease, because of its bizarre views towards human sexuality). 

And hey, who needs science when we have a magician in the sky who will come to our rescue? Of course, there is no magician in the sky, there is no god, it doesn't matter how loving or all powerful or whatever we paint this bullshit, it's still bullshit. It doesn't matter how many times we repeat it to ourselves, it's still bullshit, and not only bullshit, but considering all we know about the natural world today, it's bullshit of the most absurd proportions. And billions of people world wide base serious life decisions on this bullshit. If we want to live longer, healthier, reduce hunger and global warming, cure diseases and understand natural disasters better, witch doctors, priests, pastors, rabbi's, etc., will not help us. Only science can help us accomplish these things, and religion is the opposite of science. It's bullshit enforced by giant institutions (like the catholic church) or more dispersed (but still very powerful) protestant organizations, who all have a very profound self-interest in sustaining this ridiculous bullshit. 

So IMO, even though we have amazing potential, the human race hasn't even matured very much from our primordial state. Our science is so far ahead of every other aspect of our culture and thinking and sociopolitical structure .... that it creates a lot of unnecessary instability, and religion is a huge part of that.