I honestly have no experience of people hating religion becaus it's "hip". It usually comes down to lack of proof in god. Alcohol is proven to be bad if it's abused, I doubt you'd find many people who disagree with that.
By Faith And Faith Alone - The Existence of God
- Thread starter Diggin Deep
- Start date
To say religion isn't the cause of a single death is just incorrect.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but you are wrong in your assumptions.
Alcohol didn't kill the drunk driver, it was the car wrapping itself around a tree and the sudden stop that did.
Alcohol didn't kill the drunk, it was the fact that his liver gave out.
So I can say that alcohol didn't kill anyone throughout history and be just as correct as you when you state religion didn't kill anyone.
You're right that religion hasn't killed anyone, but it was the catalyst that lead to the deaths of millions.
Just like alcohol never killed anyone.
So let me ask you a simple question... Do you embrace and support EVERY religion or just yours?
Not news to me, I work for a drug court and have an alcoholic father.
I don't disagree about alcohol, and I don't believe going to church causes cancer, the social aspect of religious affiliation has positive health benefits.
My personal concern with religion is the power it can potentially give to dangerous beliefs, just like alcohol companies, or the media, etc...What would you consider the cause of something like the repeatedly mentioned crusades or witch trials, etc? Otherwise, individual faith and religious organizations that do no harm do not bother me in the slightest. I will argue my points in a meaningless debate on an internet forum, but I don't feel churches should be closed or rights to religious expression be taken away.
It would seem to be a great help to society, wouldn't it? I don't think it's possible to, just like I wouldn't think it's possible to "ban" religion. Banning things people like rarely goes well, so it would be foolish of me to dedicate my life to the stance, it's just not practical. There will be ills in the world, it cannot ever be harmonious. Smoking, overeating, drugs/alcohol, these are serious ills to society, yet they are valued as freedoms like religion. I'm not a huge fan of anything that harms innocent people in general, and I question their place in our world. If you drink alcohol and get cancer, one could argue no one is hurt, or one could argue the cost to health care is impacted and it is still a negative thing for innocent people... I think it's sticky.
In my case, my reaction was one from experience. Banning alcohol didn't work, did it? It could be possible in a differently run society, say if the penalty for consuming or purchasing alcohol was death, but our system as is, with the addition of a ban on alcohol, cannot make people avoid alcohol.
Do aggressive atheists want to eradicate religion?
I haven't had a drink in nearly two years, I have never been a drinker, I openly admit it, I have a passing fascination with bottles of booze and a couple preferences of type the same way I have for Greek Mythology and Jains.
It's interesting you've picked this topic, because from a personal level I have felt the effect of not being "cool" because I don't drink. It's nearly impossible to get a group of friends in your early 20's who don't get wasted...but that hasn't changed my behavior.
It would be very beneficial for me to take up Christianity, because I would adore having a big group of people to go see every weekend like churches often have. It would meet so many of my needs to "fit in", but it would be a farce. It's just not something I have a conviction for.
I agree, I mean this is the same as saying people are gay because it's trendy. Really? It's trendy to be gay and an atheist? I thought it meant you couldn't get married or hold public office in certain US states...
I had no idea I was half of the super cool crowd. *fap*
Actually alcohol can be linked to death through things like toxicology reports and controlled studies that show the proven efficay in alcohol causing death and disease. You can't do that with religion. You can't attribute a single death to religion, any more than you could attirbute it to greed, love, or any other abstract concept that has no mechanism of death. How many people have love, pride or jealousy killed? That's as ridiculous a question as asking how many religion has killed. The answer for all is zero. Those are philosophical questions nobody can answer. I am talking science here. That is how we determine cause of death in the real world.
Has money ever killed anybody? Has heavy metal music and violent movies? These things have never stopped a person from breathing or caused cancer. Alcohol has.
Does motive not matter in causes of death?
The crusades - do you honestly believe that if you went back in time soldiers from both sides woluld deny killing people over religion? More recent - do you honestlty think bin Laden didn't have a couple of planes thrown into the twin towers over religion?
No, these issues are much more complex than that. Do you honestly think the US would have been attacked if we were a totally isolationist country who didnt intervene anywhere or have any bases across the world? Why did that guy shoot John Lennon? Why does anybody do anything? Why do people go to work in the morning? These are philosophical questions that cannot be answered. Not statististically or scientifically anyway. The fact is, Catcher in the Rye should not to be taken into serious discussion in a realistic debate about the cause of John Lennon's death. You can't get inside anybody's head and figure out why they did something, or if they even had a will or choice in doing them. These are all philosophical questions that nobody can be proved right or wrong on. In other words, opinion. The fact that alcohol is a CNS depressent and damages your dna leads to cancer are not philosophical questions.
Not in science. Things like judges, juries and verdicts still come down to opinion. They aren't things that can truely be known.
You can't compile enough evidence to statistically determine human motives? Psychology begs to differ.
In any case, the crusades are a lot easier to pin motive to than the assassination of John Lennon...
Sounds like you have more of a problem with alcohol than atheism, to be honest, lol. But I can kind of see your point. If someone dosen't hurt others with their religious beliefs or try to impose them on others, they are ok with me, the same as drinkers. :thumbup
I'm not talking about the judicial process, I'm referring to cases where a person clearly states the reason they commit crime.
No, of course you can't. How do you quantify things like greed or religious levels of people, or how much they influence action? It's not like you can break down a human action and say, well this was done 100% out of spite, this other thing was done because of 22% his mother not loving him, 54% of Allah telling him to, and 24% of a hormone imbalance. No, not even close.
I believe a psychological assessment could be developed for those purposes.
You would win a Nobel Prize if you came up with one that could be proved.
I don't doubt the existence of a God, but it seems I can never get a straight answer on what Heaven is like.
I have not read the whole thread, but I have long said the only thing I can think of that would destroy my faith in God would be proof He existed. Faith is essential to Christianity (and all other faiths).
