Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

[High EGT]

not really.

People will be good if they want, religion or not.

Debatable especially if your attempting to raise "good children" but not impossible. Full time parent at home with strong moral convictions and tight restrictions on the TV would be the key absent of any religious influence.

 

[Lugnut]

Can you expound on this with some examples? It seems very contradictory to common thought, and I don't understand what you're saying.

I can try.

Would you agree that religion (in general) has less of a hold on individuals today than it did 100 years ago, and less 100 years ago than it did say 500 years ago?

 

[This_person]

I can try.

Would you agree that religion (in general) has less of a hold on individuals today than it did 100 years ago, and less 100 years ago than it did say 500 years ago?

I would agree that there is a smaller percentage of people who are strongly influenced by religion, yes.

 

[itsbob]

Interesting argument. That would seem to support the idea that religion promotes a "kindler gentler" society.

I don't think that's the case historically. I don't mean the crusades, or wars between nations on religious grounds. I mean the treatment of individuals within a single social entity (tribe, nation/state, nation, etc).

It's only in the very recent past that the concept of "Human Rights" was created. Arguably, it's greatest supporters are the societies in which religion has a weaker grasp on it's citizens.

I think I understand what you are saying..

For example: Muslims believe torture is Ok for non-believers, even death. They have less feellings for human rights than an atheist probably would.

In the past Christian religions have been the same.. Burning non believers alive, or beheading..

AS more non-religion affiliated human rights groups were getting involved in the modern age, we have become more humane in our treatment of each other. The Pope wasn't present at the Geneva and Hague conventions.. the Red Cross/ Crescent, though many members and volunteers are religious, it is not a religious entity and has more to do with guaranteeing humane treatment of others than any church has ever done.

Take religion out of the picture, and it seems we treat each other more humanely. Take the way the US (the country as a whole) treats prisoners and POW's, and how the people expect their country to take care of the same, compared to how the Muslims, Iran, Iraq, Al Quead, and even Saudi Arabia (led through religion and the Koran) treat their prisoners.

 

[This_person]

I think I understand what you are saying..

For example: Muslims believe torture is Ok for non-believers, even death. They have less feellings for human rights than an atheist probably would.

In the past Christian religions have been the same.. Burning non believers alive, or beheading..

AS more non-religion affiliated human rights groups were getting involved in the modern age, we have become more humane in our treatment of each other. The Pope wasn't present at the Geneva and Hague conventions.. the Red Cross/ Crescent, though many members and volunteers are religious, it is not a religious entity and has more to do with guaranteeing humane treatment of others than any church has ever done.

Take religion out of the picture, and it seems we treat each other more humanely. Take the way the US (the country as a whole) treats prisoners and POW's, and how the people expect their country to take care of the same, compared to how the Muslims, Iran, Iraq, Al Quead, and even Saudi Arabia (led through religion and the Koran) treat their prisoners.

How do you know what "humanely" is? My guess is, a middle eastern atheist would think punishing a woman (who happened to get raped) for being in a car with unrelated males was "humane" treatment, because that's the culture they grew up in. And, you would not think that was "humane", because the culture you grew up in was very different.

I think the culture defines how people react and determine what "humane" is. In the USA, we're 83% Christian, and the culture of the atheist is clearly effected by Christian morals and values.

 

[Lugnut]

I would agree that there is a smaller percentage of people who are strongly influenced by religion, yes.

In this time of less religious control we have greater effort, money, and time being expended by individuals, corporations, non profit org's, and nations in "humanitarian" efforts than at any other time in history.

 

[Lugnut]

How do you know what "humanely" is? My guess is, a middle eastern atheist would think punishing a woman (who happened to get raped) for being in a car with unrelated males was "humane" treatment, because that's the culture they grew up in. And, you would not think that was "humane", because the culture you grew up in was very different.

I think the culture defines how people react and determine what "humane" is. In the USA, we're 83% Christian, and the culture of the atheist is clearly effected by Christian morals and values.

That's my point.

Many cultures today are less religious than they were several hundred years ago, and yet people are treated better in these cultures now than they were in the past.

Where did you get that 83% stat? According to the US census 76% of adults identified themselves as christian in 2001 (based on a 50,000 person survey). I've seen numbers in the past that said less than 80% of the adult population identified with ANY religion let alone christianity specifically.

I would suspect that most religious surveys are skewed simply because it's such a "hot topic." But hey, I'm cynical.

 

[itsbob]

How do you know what "humanely" is? My guess is, a middle eastern atheist would think punishing a woman (who happened to get raped) for being in a car with unrelated males was "humane" treatment, because that's the culture they grew up in. And, you would not think that was "humane", because the culture you grew up in was very different.



I think the culture defines how people react and determine what "humane" is. In the USA, we're 83% Christian, and the culture of the atheist is clearly effected by Christian morals and values.

NO, that was from a country who's laws are based on Islam.. a secularist from that country would probably agree that the punishment not only was excessive, but also not humane becasue his thoughts and idealogy aren't clouded by religious teachings.. Now those that believe in the teachings of Islam (the religion who dictates that countries laws) would agree that the punishment was right and just, and would probably ask for a more barbaric punishment, like stoning or beheading.

Of course this point is moot.. If you were an atheist or a secularist in that country you'd have already been executed, so your opinion would never be heard.

Now in this country, thanks to those secularists and atheists that came before us, we don't burn witches and non-believers at the stake. We don't punish people for heresy.. it's not even a law in this country.. But go to Iran and talk bad about Islam or Mohammed, and see where you end up.

Atheists and secularists are good, and serve a purpose.. we wouldn't be as civilized as we are today if not for them.

 

[river rat]

RiverRat and Lugnuts post seem to disagree with you.

I ask the question in speculation.
I don't know the answer. I have never lived in a society without religion.

Have you? NO. It would be impossible, unless you born before 6000 BC or BCE.
There has always been a religion. Believing in "afterlife" is a basic human need.

 

[river rat]

I can try.

Would you agree that religion (in general) has less of a hold on individuals today than it did 100 years ago, and less 100 years ago than it did say 500 years ago?

No. Religious influences are still the same. Unchanged.

If you re-phrase it to read "Does the Christian religion have less a hold say, than 100 years ago." Yes. 500? No. Still alot of Paganistic believes.

Look at all the churches being built to accomodate the population here.
I get just as many invitations to bid work for churches as I do retail.

Even though society does not take their faith as "serious" as 100 years ago there is still the same influence as there was 100 years ago. It resonates in most every conversation we have.

Vows, the "Pledge", are transactions. Court rooms revolve on Biblical believes.
Theft, perjury, vandalism, even swearing into to take the stand.

 

[river rat]

I think I understand what you are saying..

For example: Muslims believe torture is Ok for non-believers, even death. They have less feellings for human rights than an atheist probably would.

In the past Christian religions have been the same.. Burning non believers alive, or beheading..
AS more non-religion affiliated human rights groups were getting involved in the modern age, we have become more humane in our treatment of each other. The Pope wasn't present at the Geneva and Hague conventions.. the Red Cross/ Crescent, though many members and volunteers are religious, it is not a religious entity and has more to do with guaranteeing humane treatment of others than any church has ever done.

Take religion out of the picture, and it seems we treat each other more humanely. Take the way the US (the country as a whole) treats prisoners and POW's, and how the people expect their country to take care of the same, compared to how the Muslims, Iran, Iraq, Al Quead, and even Saudi Arabia (led through religion and the Koran) treat their prisoners.

As the "noose" is loosened. The moral fabric is broken.
Grandma's beaten in the streets by thugs.
High school and college students spray bullets on innocent bystanders.
Sexual liberation causing unwanted pregnancies and dead beat dads.
Rituals go arwy and kill little kids.

So for every good point made there are the bad.

We do not treat people more humanely because religion is "taken out of the picture".
It is just that we have learned a lesson from previous atrocities.
Hitler, Japanese POWs, etc.

 

[Lugnut]

No. Religious influences are still the same. Unchanged.

If you re-phrase it to read "Does the Christian religion have less a hold say, than 100 years ago." Yes. 500? No. Still alot of Paganistic believes.

Look at all the churches being built to accomodate the population here.
I get just as many invitations to bid work for churches as I do retail.

Even though society does not take their faith as "serious" as 100 years ago there is still the same influence as there was 100 years ago. It resonates in most every conversation we have.

Vows, the "Pledge", are transactions. Court rooms revolve on Biblical believes.
Theft, perjury, vandalism, even swearing into to take the stand.

First, I said "religion" not christianity. Paganism is a religion.

Second, you're contradicting yourself. Either people (in general) are taking religion (in general) more seriously, or they are taking it less seriously. Which is it?

From what I've read, the further back you go in history the more control religions had over an individuals lives and choices.

Religion has less of a hold on people with every generation. It is in decline. Yet the concept of "human rights" is growing and the standard of living is improving.

 

[This_person]

In this time of less religious control we have greater effort, money, and time being expended by individuals, corporations, non profit org's, and nations in "humanitarian" efforts than at any other time in history.

Perhaps (obviously amounts, but I'm not as sure about percentages). However, all that means is that organizations had to switch from religious organizations doing those functions to secular organizations doing those functions because of "separation" laws and inclusion. When you speak of individuals, you must ascertain their motives to imply that religious control is not at hand (ie, if 83% of this nation is Christian, how can you rule out their religious influence?). The same argument goes for corporations. And, are you speaking of only non-religious based non-profit organizations? And, what is the motive of the people in those organizations?

You make a valid point, but I don't think it's thoroughly thought out.

 

[Xaquin44]

Perhaps (obviously amounts, but I'm not as sure about percentages). However, all that means is that organizations had to switch from religious organizations doing those functions to secular organizations doing those functions because of "separation" laws and inclusion. When you speak of individuals, you must ascertain their motives to imply that religious control is not at hand (ie, if 83% of this nation is Christian, how can you rule out their religious influence?). The same argument goes for corporations. And, are you speaking of only non-religious based non-profit organizations? And, what is the motive of the people in those organizations?

You make a valid point, but I don't think it's thoroughly thought out.

Just out of curiosity, what are we calling 'christian'?

I mean I could list 40 people that, when asked, would say they're christian, but they never go to church or donate money or etc.

 

[This_person]

Many cultures today are less religious than they were several hundred years ago, and yet people are treated better in these cultures now than they were in the past.

By what standard? Crime is up significantly, especially violent crimes. Middle Eastern women are routinely abused by our standards. Asian women and children are still grossly abused routinely. What do you base your statement that people are treated better on?

Where did you get that 83% stat? According to the US census 76% of adults identified themselves as christian in 2001 (based on a 50,000 person survey). I've seen numbers in the past that said less than 80% of the adult population identified with ANY religion let alone christianity specifically.

An ABC news poll conducted in 2002. Granted, the numbers may have changed slightly, and certainly this poll of a few thousand was a smaller cross section than the census. I don't see a huge difference conceptually between upper 70s and lower 80s when we're talking 300,000,000 people. Let's split the difference and say "around 80%".

I would suspect that most religious surveys are skewed simply because it's such a "hot topic." But hey, I'm cynical.

Including the census, I agree. There are many idiots out there that say things different than the truth for no real reason.

 

[Lugnut]

Perhaps (obviously amounts, but I'm not as sure about percentages). However, all that means is that organizations had to switch from religious organizations doing those functions to secular organizations doing those functions because of "separation" laws and inclusion. When you speak of individuals, you must ascertain their motives to imply that religious control is not at hand (ie, if 83% of this nation is Christian, how can you rule out their religious influence?). The same argument goes for corporations. And, are you speaking of only non-religious based non-profit organizations? And, what is the motive of the people in those organizations?

You make a valid point, but I don't think it's thoroughly thought out.

Oh definitely. This is off the cuff for the most part.

 

[This_person]

NO, that was from a country who's laws are based on Islam.. a secularist from that country would probably agree that the punishment not only was excessive, but also not humane becasue his thoughts and idealogy aren't clouded by religious teachings.. Now those that believe in the teachings of Islam (the religion who dictates that countries laws) would agree that the punishment was right and just, and would probably ask for a more barbaric punishment, like stoning or beheading.j

I agree that the laws are based upon that area's predominant religion. However, I disagree that the atheist in the area would have found it wrong. People gain their values and morals from the culture they grow up in. A person raised in that culture would have found that acceptable, IMO.

Of course this point is moot.. If you were an atheist or a secularist in that country you'd have already been executed, so your opinion would never be heard.

True, very unlike Christianity, which is clearly the more tolerant religion.

Now in this country, thanks to those secularists and atheists that came before us, we don't burn witches and non-believers at the stake. We don't punish people for heresy.. it's not even a law in this country.. But go to Iran and talk bad about Islam or Mohammed, and see where you end up.

Why do you think that atheists and secularists were the motive force to stop that practice? I would suspect that there were a very few zealots that caused the problem, and the mainstream religious people stopped it. I can't quote a source, but I strongly suspect that no one came forth declaring "you Christians are being wrong, and we non-believers will stop you!"

Atheists and secularists are good, and serve a purpose.. we wouldn't be as civilized as we are today if not for them.

Can you show me one, just one, way that a person or organization brought forth a civilized act or stopped a barbaric practice based upon non-belief, to back that thought up?

 

[This_person]

Just out of curiosity, what are we calling 'christian'?

I mean I could list 40 people that, when asked, would say they're christian, but they never go to church or donate money or etc.

Certainly a valid point/question to ask. Even JPC calls himself a Christian, yet clearly has no idea what that means.

However, going to church and/or donating money to a church does not make nor break one as to being a Christian. It's clearly what you believe in your heart, mind, and (not to start another fight or anything, but) soul.

 

[Xaquin44]

However, going to church and/or donating money to a church does not make nor break one as to being a Christian. It's clearly what you believe in your heart, mind, and (not to start another fight or anything, but) soul.

I agree, but that calls into sharp relief the necessity of the church itself.

 

[This_person]

I agree, but that calls into sharp relief the necessity of the church itself.

okay..................:shrug: