Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

That -is- all that people are expressing to you, when they tell you that atheism is a only a no answer regarding their status of belief in gods (not whatever other things you might be tempted to attach..like "darwinism" or "scientism" or even skepticism......)  It's useful to remind people of this, because we see no end of statement such as:

"Atheism can't be true, because I've never found a crocoduck in my peanut butter jar!"
-not atheism (just in case you were wondering)

As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because. Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

---

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). 

I understand you were arguing by analogy. I also understand you argument to be a logical fallacy of composition, (particularly in regards to Rome which by nearly every measure is considered to have been great for humanity overall even with atrocities). As you reiterate in your claim that just because something did good does not mean the good outweighed the bad. To which I may say just because something has done bad does not mean the bad has out weighted the good and be as justified as you are in your claim. I am sure that by most objective measure the Catholic church and religion has done far more good for humanity than harm. (Kudos on not arguing the conjecture).

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). 

And I do not think we invest nearly enough of these things because we live in a relativistic consumer society that advocates the self more than humanity and ownership of the latest toy and easy money over education and hard work. That and people general disposition to eat them selves to a heart attack and distract themselves with twitter, facebook, and the internet in general. So should I condemn Secularism? Capitalism? Consumerism? Individualism? Nope it has to be Religions fault. Because it is not like people would have any other excuse for not spending money to help people or that religion somehow promotes an idea of social charity.

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. 

As I said in an early post, history does not bear out your utopia of nonreligion. Communism shares your argument regarding manipulation of the masses by religion. History shoes religion commonly served the roll of social advocate for the people. Societies with out religion have historically tend to be more authoritarian, less free, and less advance. History shows that humanity has progressed the most scientifically, artistically, and socially under islamic and christian rule.

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). 

Again history does not support this claim of religions hostility to education. I do have to say I find it funny that you are saying religion constrains people, argues people constrain their sexual desires, and is at fault for not encouraging people in a way to act without constraint. If sex is that dangerous the church should not need to tell anyone to restrain themselves, they should do it of their own volition. It is not like the church is hiding the data on STDs from the people. In fact the church is trying to educate the people as much as possible about the STDs and the best way to avoid them which is to control ones self!! Now people are free, and not so constrained by the church as to have it our way. Which is why they freely engage in dangerous conduct, in contradiction to advice and information provided, and risk getting a sexually transmitted disease. So do you want us to let them be free or to police their conduct entirely. If they are free they are free to not listen.

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. 

Hey who have been the staunches advocates of science and education as illustrated by the various links I already provided you. The church!! Those religions bastards. Have we forgotten that already? Hmm... Perhaps you should study the history of science more. I think you will find the amount of contribution by religionous organizations and clergy to be rather shocking. I have already provided the several links in this thread. Feel free to peruse.

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. 

Feel better? I would say individualism and consumerism are a far bigger part of that IMO.