Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Given that this animal be identified as a duck, it follows that I am correct in saying that ducks are flightless.

---

At 2/2/11 01:27 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 2/1/11 06:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh hello there thinly veiled slight toward atheism.

I was just thinking that this is what I would probably think if I was an atheist myself.

Wait wait wait... let me get this straight...

This post gets a reply, despite it solely addressing your contempt for atheism... where as... you've neglected countless other posts that actually address far more pertinent issues - and you've neglected them on the basis that they're attacking you and your beliefs.

Did I just step into the twilight zone?

Please don't play off what you said as anything less than a facsimile of that quote from Trey Parker you like to parade around here. What you think of atheism and what you think you'd think of atheism are obviously one in the same.

Much love.

---

At 2/2/11 12:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote: How so? it's a proverb... not evidence. I just choose a popular saying/proverb/idiom/whatever-you-call-i t to further clarify my point of 'missing the point by being too focused on the details'. [...]

And I take it this response from you is some of that "see what it's like when I do what you do" stuff?

Pettier squabbles aside...

Do you still think I'm picking and choosing (by which you mean selecting only the most conducive to my position, disregarding anything else) what morals religion effects? Or more importantly, how do you, Cache, brand any war religious?

Do you understand why it's fair to consider buying new editions of Huck Finn dangerous?

Do you consider risk management hypocritical, or more precisely, that the hypocrisy of risk management renders it an unjustified pursuit?

Do you understand why a statement like "[attribute 1] of [system x] poses a danger to [system a]" is far more meaningful than "[ System x ] is bad."?

Do you understand why your response to super6nacho was both 1) committing the same fallacy of which you've since charged super6nacho 2) re-bracketing what his argument actually was?

---

At 2/1/11 12:21 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, from a purely scientific sense, I would say you came to exist in this body by pure chance or perhaps luck.

Oh hello there thinly veiled slight toward atheism.

---

At 2/1/11 04:10 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 1/31/11 05:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: "A witty quote proves nothing" Voltaire

I wasn't trying to prove anything...
Once again, the point of the statement was missed.

You seem to be playing the "I'm going to take everything as literally as possible to divert the conversation" game that you were just accusing avie of playing.

---

At 1/29/11 01:37 PM, The-universe wrote: You didn't ask me to describe the difference between strict and specific. You said I was being strict with definitions, I said I was being specific. You then asked for the difference between belief and position.

You said there was a huge difference between strict and specific. I asked what exactly that difference was.

I didn't say those words did.

"That would work if I was making the definitions strict, whereas I was going for specific."

In other words, what I said doesn't work, because I was talking about strict definition where as you were talking about specific definition.

And it's a copy and paste job which almost pretty much agree's with me.

Oh no! A copy paste job! Do you understand why it's a copy paste job? There was a point being made.

Atheism is [ a position ], not [ a belief ].

Intrinsically, yes, but not necessarily.

For an Atheist to force their beliefs that belief would be unrelated to Atheism itself.

This is a presumption based on precisely the fallacy implied by avie's and your argument.

Which means when you replied to avie you switched the words in order to make his statement bunk, which is flirting very closely to a straw man and he was indeed correct.

I switched the words because avie's argument was disingenuously bracketed narrower than the context of the discussion.

However if he said position, then your reply to him would have been correct.

You seem to have missed the point that I was actually making.

Unless Cache was referring to some random belief about something entirely unrelated to atheism, in which case why did he just mention theists and atheists doing that and not everything else?

And that's a question based on the aforementioned presumption.

---

At 1/29/11 01:39 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 1/28/11 06:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/28/11 02:22 PM, The-universe wrote: That would work if I was making the definitions strict, whereas I was going for specific. Huge difference there too.

Before I get offended for being expected to eat what looks like a cheap semantic decontextualization trick, exactly to what massive difference (that would apparently render my argument irrelevant) are you referring?

I already said it in an earlier post.

No. You did not describe the difference between "strict" and "specific." You used the term "specific" though, and "broad."

Are you just slipping over huge gaps of text when reading posts?

No. In fact... I quoted it and directly responded to it. I'm asking you what the massive difference between your use of the word specific and my use of the word strict renders my argument irrelevant.

Is all this confusion really because you saw the word strict and decided, "nope, he must be talking about something else again."? Maybe this will help...

If we're adhering to the more specific definition of belief, then the notion that some atheists do force their beliefs is either nonsensical (if applied to those lacking belief), or only referring to those atheists who do have beliefs. And the latter is debatable when, in the same sentence, atheism is referred to monolithically as the lack of belief. There is a world of difference between "[...] since atheism isn't even really a belief" and "[...] since atheism isn't necessarily a belief." And if we're making such fine distinctions, particularly speaking to those that define atheism, that one aught to be important.

So, if we're going with the specific notion of belief as conviction, then no. Avie did not imply anything of those forcing positions. If we go with a broader definition of the word belief, then Avie was disingenuous.

Additionally, if the argument was in response to a claim not differentiating between belief and position, actually conflating the two, the context is inherently greater than merely the issue of whether those with beliefs force them. An argument for the definition of atheism, via some specificity* of the word "belief," while maybe educational, is diversionary at best, and dishonest at worst.

* this word, I didn't change from strictness.

---

At 1/28/11 09:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yeah, I can certainly see that now based on what you took the meaning to be. So again hopefully I've corrected that with the follow up posts and the mea culpa will work towards my absolution :)

Gah. I shouldn't have made two thirds of my post about something that isn't even my point. This is what I have a problem with: "[some] atheists aren't exactly forcing their beliefs on people since atheism isn't even really a belief, it's the absence of belief." Militant or not. Doesn't matter.

---

At 1/28/11 12:30 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IF there's any bad to do with it, that is most important.

Here are some questions just as important...

Is there anything good?
Is the bad forgivable in light of the good?
What bad does the good forgive?
Can the bad be removed without removing the good?
Would a religion still be a religion if all the bad was removed from it?

---

At 1/27/11 09:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: My point tended towards a militant atheist is not equal to a regular atheist. That it's unfair for someone to say "this is how atheists are" and then only point to an extreme element. Sorry that I made that unclear with that last sentence there.

Well... that's not what you said. You made the argument that even militant and religion hating atheists weren't necessarily forcing their beliefs. To phrase it similarly, your point tended towards: an atheist-forceful-of-their-beliefs is not representative of all atheists (militant included). That's not really my issue though. And I agree with the picture.

What I'm objecting to is the means by which you made that point. In a dispute where a key issue is the distortion of the picture by incomplete presentation, what you said was problematic.

---

At 1/28/11 02:57 PM, CacheHelper wrote: In the "everday conversation" point of view, religion is not "dangerous".

The "everyday" context is not particularly inclusive though, is it.

---

At 1/28/11 02:22 PM, The-universe wrote: That would work if I was making the definitions strict, whereas I was going for specific. Huge difference there too.

Before I get offended for being expected to eat what looks like a cheap semantic decontextualization trick, exactly to what massive difference (that would apparently render my argument irrelevant) are you referring?

---

At 1/27/11 04:19 PM, The-universe wrote: But they're not talking about a position that can refer to anything, they're talking about something specific. The point avie was making is, you can't force a belief in something if you don't have one. Yes, you can force a position, but not a belief that you do not adhere to. Avie even mentioned that not all atheists force their (whatever) on others, which is implying that some do.
So all you're doing is making a statement that is evident when it's already implied in the post you're replying to.

If we're adhering to the stricter definition of belief, then the notion that some atheists do force their beliefs is either nonsensical (if applied to those lacking belief), or only referring to those atheists who do have beliefs. And the latter is debatable when, in the same sentence, atheism is referred to monolithically as the lack of belief. There is a world of difference between "[...] since atheism isn't even really a belief" and "[...] since atheism isn't necessarily a belief." And if we're making such fine distinctions, particularly speaking to those that define atheism, that one aught to be important.

So, if we're going strictly with the notion of belief as conviction, then no. Avie did not imply anything of those forcing positions. If we go with a looser definition of the word belief, then Avie was disingenuous.

Additionally, if the argument was in response to a claim not differentiating between belief and position, actually conflating the two, the context is inherently greater than merely the issue of whether those with beliefs force them. An argument for the definition of atheism, via some specificity of the word "belief," while maybe educational, is diversionary at best, and dishonest at worst.

---

At 1/27/11 12:15 PM, The-universe wrote: You seemed to have missed the point avie was making.

That's very helpful, thanks. Is this a guessing game?

Was his point that (some) militant atheists aren't pushing their beliefs because they don't have a belief (or position) to push? Cause that's how it read to me.

---

At 1/26/11 09:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: even a lot of militant or religion hating atheists aren't exactly forcing their beliefs on people since atheism isn't even really a belief, it's the absence of belief.

Aw come on, you didn't really just say that.

If you've got a position, then you've got something to push, and if you've justified it, you've got a basis to push it on. Someone who hates religion... well... they have at least that to push. (Whether they choose to is another issue).

---

At 1/26/11 04:29 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So if someone suggests that kitty litter solves cancer...and it is tried and doesn't solve cancer...it should still be tested to see WHY it doesn't solve cancer?

Except stem cells have been used, successfully, to treat cancer. So it's not merely an arbitrary suggestion that stem cells could help regenerate various tissues in the human body.

Your argument that { using stem cells makes about as much sense as using kitty litter } doesn't hold up since there's actually a relationship between stem cells and tissue regeneration, both in concept and proof of concept. So...

If you've got a concept and proof of concept, yet, an implementation that should conceivably work but does not, it might very well be worth some effort to figure out why. Progress is often made this way.

I don't have to. Same reason I don't have to present reasons kitty litter doesn't cure cancer. It just doesn't.

Except that's not why kitty litter doesn't cure cancer. You're just restating the hypothesis and relying on 'common' intuition to fill in the blank.

---

At 1/25/11 04:54 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Agreed... then without religion people would have at least one less reason to consider not killing someone. Meaning people would be that much more likely to kill others. So without religion, people would be more likely to commit sins... ranging from theft and adultry to murder.

At this point, I really hope you're just fucking with me...

While collective values may only be understood on a cumulative basis, an individual's values are not necessarily cumulative. It follows from the notion that people do similar things for dissimilar reasons, that there is an abundance of values of various potencies - potency that varies not just from reason to reason but from individual to individual per reason and not just from individual to individual but from time to time per individual.

And when you immediately follow your argument with "the world wouldn't be better off," it's clear that you translate likelihood to preponderance. Where as now, you seem to be translating likelihood to willingness. There is however a significant disconnect between willingness and preponderance, given the aforementioned abundance of weights and values.

All that aside, I do agree with what you're saying when it is decontextualized, taken ceteris paribus.

To which I replied that there are many things that don't compare to the immense violence of war, but can still be considered, 'realistically,' dangerous.

Then anyone who says they don't like religion because of how dangerous it is, also should refrain from other dangerous activities... like driving a car or owning property.

(Or watching reality TV, or buying new editions of Huck Finn...)

I've also already said this... once again, do you even read what I write?

Do you consider risk management hypocritical?

You know what, I don't even care... it's just too stupid a topic to even discuss any further. If you don't understand why, it's now a personal problem.

Is it pointless to identify the bad aspects of a given thing?

Is it pointless to alter the phrase to place emphasis on the attribute rather than the thing?

On the one hand you're lambasting generalities like "religion is dangerous", and on the other call refinements of the expression pointless or technical (as though the technicality is fallacious or distracting).

I'd think you'd much prefer "[attribute 1] of [system x] poses a danger to [system a]" over "[ System x ] is bad." It's the direction I was going, and it's actually been a point of yours. You, however, seem to be taking it as a way means to excuse broad generalities, so that I can 'get away' with saying "religion is dangerous."

But if that is such a big problem, then you shouldn't have ever broached the topic by saying religions isn't dangerous.

If you want to talk about pointless statements, gross generalities like "religion is/isn't dangerous" are pretty high up on the list.

---

At 1/25/11 02:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote: So you get to pick and choose what morals religion effects? It's funny how that works...

I already told you "Religion is a reason that people don't kill each other," which I think murder falls under. So your a bit off in implying that { my disagreement with the notion that, "people would be more likely to commit sins (murder, adultry, theft, etc...)," } stems from { my being selective as to which morals religion effects }.

I know... I was the first to point this out.... with "the sun", "food", and "the idea of ownership". hell, I even mentioned cars. Do you even read what I write?

Context: You were making the point that religion shouldn't be considered 'realistically' dangerous - that, only technically speaking, religion, like food and the sun, are dangerous. You go on to reiterate that "in a more 'realistic... everyday conversation' sense [...] religion is not dangerous."

To which I replied that there are many things that don't compare to the immense violence of war, but can still be considered, 'realistically,' dangerous.

My point is actually in disagreement with yours.

I'm not defending the original claim...

Then why reply at all?

Are you suggesting that if I disagree with a position, I should not find fault with any refutation of it?

Fine. And religion could be [x] and the staement [c] is bad about [x] could apply to litterally anything in existance. Which makes it a pointless thing to say and takes us back to the argument of using common sense in a discussion.

How does that make it a pointless thing to say? It's substantially more honest and meaningful than the statement to which I provided the alternative.

Or are you criticizing the fact that the model is an abstraction by which variables can be substituted for more explicit values?

Clearly when I say "religion is not dangerous" I do not litterally imply that there is zero things bad or harmful about it.... after all, there is always something bad or harmful invovled with EVERYTHING IN EXISTANCE. I'm just saying that, in comparrison with everything else in existance, religion is relativly harmless as there are a lot more, far more dangerous things, that we deal with on an every day basis.

I'm 100% positive you understand that.

Yes. But your argument presents a relativistic dilemma.

Or to imply that it's more dangerous then driving a car, eating food, going outside, smoking a cigarette, or any number of other things.

Yes, that is something that "leaving it at that" would imply.

Yet that exactly what you want to imply when you say "religion is dangerous".

You're making a blatently false claim and using a technicality to claim it as a fact... maybe you should be a politician.

Me? Are you sure?

do I want religion to be abolished?

I don't think so.

Things are looking up.

---

I think we inherently regard consciousness as mystical largely because we have no intuitive concept of the degree of complexity between a simple machine and our brains. There's no visceral way to get it.

Ever hear of rule 110?

---

At 1/24/11 12:30 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Ok, then this is the offical stance we'll take from here on out to avoid any further confusion.

I highly doubt it'll avoid any further confusion.

no need to discuss it further.

Eh. Alright. But you're making similar errors, as I see them, in this tangent as with the other. Seeing the same issue in two kinda different situations sometimes helps.

Use your common sense... at this point, you're just being an ass and I see no further need to waist my time explaining to you things that you clearly understand, but just choose not too.

Actually, what you're asking me to do is take two sentiments at face value, and forget the context either lends to the other. What I'm being is: resistant to you worming around.

The two statements are very different when one is used to exclude a corroborative tangent, where as the other, in being said as a facsimile of the one, is used to abstractly include corroborative tangents (so as to then deny that there are outliers).

They're not. Which is why I didn't use them.

"in areas where we could use numbers"

I'm going to guess the next move. You say, "yeah you could use numbers, but they wouldn't be relevant."

Show me you're better than that.

Our offical stance is that 'religion is a reason...'. Without this reason, people would, as agreed, be more likely to commit sins (murder, adultry, theft, etc...).

I did not agree to that.

The world might not be in 'chaos' but it wouldn't be better off.

Hmmm... this gives me an idea... I've a surprise for you at the end of my reply.

Even if we get technical, religion is still far less dangerous then fatty foods, melanoma, or the idea of 'ownership'. Argue it all you want, but that's the cold, hard, truth.

I'm not sure you understand what I meant by "not completely thorough."

Are there religious groups somehow stoping people from having wet-floors? Encourange more floors to be constantly wet? I don't understand.

There are many things that don't compare to the immense violence of war, but can still be considered, 'realistically,' dangerous, like: Cars. Gasoline. Wet floors. Ice. Radon...

Except the original claim was more along the lines of "religion is bad because of [c]"

I'm not defending the original claim. Additionally, [x] could be exchanged for either "religion is good" "religion is bad" "religion is dangerous" "religion is not dangerous". Though for simplicity's sake I was only thinking of the latter when I wrote the model.

You're the one that argued that we add in [a] and [b]... at which point I explained why we couldn't.

It does not follow, from [a] and [b] are not determinable, that [x] rely solely on [c].

But even if we did, it's till doesn't prove that "religion is bad because of [c]"

Would you be more comfortable with: "[c] is bad about religion." ?

I do enjoy how unwilling you are to accept the facts...

I accept the figure from Wikipedia. It is enough to say "religion is dangerous" however it would be disingenuous to leave it at that or imply from it that religion is only dangerous.

Since you know me so well, do I want religion to be abolished? Though, given the preface, the answer should be really obvious.

---

At 1/21/11 01:00 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I can, and I do... but that's beside the point. I'm just telling you that however you choose to look at it, you have to look at it that way across the bored. You can't say 'religion is a reason people dislike stem cell research' but then turn right around and deny the claims that 'religion is a reason that people don't kill each other'.

Religion is a reason that people don't kill each other.

Religion is not the reason that people don't kill each other.

Because anything can alter the numbers...

Except that doesn't explain why an issue of "social acceptance" would preclude said issue also being one of numbers. All you're saying is that we can't trust numbers. You're not bridging the logical gap between numbers and social acceptance.

If anything, social acceptance is inherently an issue of enumeration.

People would likely have similar moral views without religion.

This, is the point I'm trying to make.

One of them. And you make it because you think I'm disputing it.

They all stem back to two examples.

"I'm just pointing out how often religion takes the fall for things it's not largely responsible for."

... is very different from...

"All the points I'm making stem back to examples of religion taking the fall for things it's not largely responsible for."

... when the former is used to exclude a corroborative tangent, where as, in being said as a facsimile of the latter, is used to abstractly include corroborative tangents (so as to then deny that there are outliers).

At which point, I begain explaining that religion doesn't hold back stem cell research, moral values do... moral values that would exist without religion... as we've just both agreed to above.

Yet, religion informs moral values. This does not contradict the notion that identical values would exist in the absence of religion, nor does it mean religion is a substantial cause for every moral value.

in areas where we could use numbers

Why would numbers be of any use to an issue to which they are irrelevant?

I'm talking about the hypocracy of saying you don't partake in religion because religion is dangerous but then turning right around and partaking in everyday activites that are far more dangerous then religion without bating an eye.

Actually he (super6nacho) added, and this is important, "Aboslhing it would not purge the world into chaos or anyting."

I think you and I can both agree that that's immensely solipsistic and dishonest.

In other words, if your excuse for disliking religion is 'it's dangerous' you''re either an uneducated hipocrit who doesn't know what he's talking about... or you better not own a single item, go outside in the sun, or eat food.

Or you're not completely thorough in your explanation. To borrow a phrase from you, "It's all about how techincal you want to get."

And one of those was brought up... stem cell research... do you have others you would like to discuss? If so, present them... I can't read your mind.

Cars. Gasoline. Wet floors. Ice. Radon...

It depends on the case. You can't compare a modern war to that of a barbaric tribe. Modern war has nukes and thousands of people getting involved. Tribal warfar had a few sticks and maybe a few hundred people at best. In the time before global trade and technology, war effected the economy a lot more then it does today and lots of innocent people died from malnutrition or sickness. There are just too many outside variables to alter the death count to give you any sort of scientific data. What we can go by, is why we chose to fight in the first place.

[x] relies on [a] [b] and [c]. I only have proof of [c]. Therefore [x]. Surely you can understand why this reasoning is fallacious.

This argument is valid because the original assumption being made is that we go to war over religion frequently... and if we where to get rid of religion, we would get rid of a lot of war.

That assumption may have been made, but the conclusion (toward which the assumption was made) in dispute was whether religion is dangerous.

You guys are the ones that wanted the body count... I just gave you what you asked for.

Whether or not we asked does not change whether or not you consider body count relevant.

---

At 1/21/11 12:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Bacchanalian however is another type.

*gasp* How dare you pigeon hole me into some arbitrary grouping! I'm no type youuu hypocrite!

***

Saen... I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, except I need to sleep...

---

At 1/20/11 01:45 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 1/19/11 11:42 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: A reason or the reason. Which do you think I'm arguing?

It doesn't matter what you choose... the same logic will be applied to any other social and moral no-no of society.

No, actually it won't, because while "a" and "the" may be a semantic nuance, it is syntactically distinct - radically so. And the use of one or the other, given a certain combination of other relevant clauses, describes, by virtue of it being a syntactic difference, certain logical protocol.

If a person uses religion as [A/THE] REASON to disaprove of stem cell research then a person uses religion as [A/THE] REASON not to murder their neighbor.

There is massive difference between the position that states...

If a person uses religion as a reason [...]

If a person uses religion as the reason [...]

Religion gives people a reason [...]

Religion gives people the reason [...]

Religion is responsible for the moral value [...]

Religion is responsible for a moral value [...]

If you cannot distinguish between the above fragments, then it's no wonder that so much of what I say to you is responded to as if I've argued the nearest absolutist caricature.

There is a third option... religion isn't responsible for the morals of human beings.

I rather disagree. As a facet of human nature, religion is absolutely a contributing element to a general moral code, as well as to outlying moral values.

Please take note that the disagreement does not rely on religion being the sole contributor to every moral value.

No, and I didn't say that they where.

My mistake...

The Egyptians and Romans were secularists before the Bible?

this isn't an issue of numbers... in this case, it's an issue of 'socal acceptance'.

How does it being an issue of social acceptance preclude it from being an issue of numbers?

Not me...

Yes, you were, though mockingly, because you're under the impression that I must be. However, I am not, nor is it an implication of my position.

Good... so then claims that moral debates suffer because of religion is false. People would still have these moral views even without religion.

All kinds of debates suffer due to religion. People would likely have similar moral views without religion.

I'm just pointing out how often religion takes the fall for things it's not largly responsible for.

That is an incredibly dishonest representation of your investment in this conversation. Should I compile a string of quotes demonstrating so?

If you wanted. But I could easily debunk the claims by providing proof of thousand-six-hundred-and-fourty+ other wars that weren't fougth over religion.

Yes, you could, but we're scrutinizing what you actually did.

Bill eats pulled pork for dinner one-thousand-seven-hundred-and-sixty-som e days. He eats beef for dinner one-hundred and twenty-two days. Does bill invovle beef in his dinner more, or pulled pork?

Analogy: { Is religion fought over more often? } is to { Is religion (more) dangerous? } as { Does Bill eat beef more often? } is to { Is beef (more) filling? }

So the people claiming they dislike religion because of the war it causes better never own anything... homes, cars, tvs, computers, etc... because territory and resources are far more dangerous then the belief in (a) high being(s)

You yourself have explained that our decisions are not based solely on how dangerous something is.

[do I seriously have to do this bracket bullshit?

If it bothers you, you could say "the divine" instead.

It's all about how techincal you want to get. Technically speaking, all things are dangerous. If this is the rout you want to take, then yes religion is dangerous. But so is food, and the sun. If you hate religion because it's dangerous you should also hate food and the sun

Not necessarily. You are again, reducing my position to the nearest absolutist caricature.

If you want to have this conversation in a more 'realistic... everyday conversation' sense then religion is not dangerous. Why? Go back and re-read my posts... but this time, without the "what word can i use to derail the conversation" mentality.

There are many things that don't compare to the immense violence of war, but can still be considered, 'realistically,' dangerous.

Additionally, you have now, yourself, made it explicitly clear that you do attribute a degree of danger according to a potential for damage, not just in a meditation presuming my positions.

The diffrence here is that we actually have numbers... of everyday things that occure, in the same year, at the same time.

Rather than follow this tangent, I'll redirect your attention to what you did not address: And that is the only conceivable danger [death] it poses? You just exploded the discussion into a generalization of 'good' and 'bad' but only wish to discuss it in terms of body count.

To be fair, you did just mention robbery, which does not necessarily implicate lethal force, but that's still an incredibly myopic interpretation of danger.

---

At 1/19/11 02:29 PM, CacheHelper wrote: It doesn't matter what I personally acknowledge... after all, I acknowledge the possibility a creator or higher power. Just because I think something is possible doesn't mean that it actually occured.

Except "I believe there to be war before 8000BC" is a tad different than "I believe that there was a possibility that there was war before 8000BC."

If we take what you say as fact, then yes... religion does come with the downside of giving people the reason to reject stem cell research. But it also comes with the upside of giving people a reason not to stap their friends in the face everytime they lose a game of monopoly.

A reason or the reason. Which do you think I'm arguing?

Assuming someone who would stab their friends is going to stab their friends regardless of religious belief also implys that someone who is against stem cell research is going to be against stem cell research regardless of religious belief. At this point, religion is mearly there to back up their claims of why it's bad, but not souly responsible for their personal decision to disagree with it.

Do you think I'm claiming that religion is solely responsible for the aforementioned values?

Then murder rates would be sky high without religion... people use to stab each other all the time in egypt and rome. Then the Bible came along and man started to calm down with the whole 'murder' thing. Great... I'll take 'not getting murdred' over 'stem cell research' anyday and religion still has far more positive aspects on society then it does negative aspects. Thus making it, 'not dangerious'.

The Egyptians and Romans were atheists before the Bible?

You just, in your last response to me, told me (and are about to again) that I could not make an assumption that more people died in religious wars because the data isn't really there [ Mind you this was despite my not actually ever making such an assumption nor intending to ]. So, I take it you have reliable data corroborating that stabbings nose dived after the wide acceptance of Christianity in the aforementioned civilizations.

Not only that, but you're making a pretty big assumption that socio-economic factors aren't the major contributor to the alleged relative peace of modern day living.

I realize that the argument you've just made is a meditation on the premise that religion is not directly tied to morality. However, once again, it does not follow. Direct relation does not equate to sole relation, not on a macroscopic scale.

The notion that religion is only either benign or impotent is a notion neither of us hold, yet you seem to be arguing for it.

It's really not... the issue here is how often religion leads to violence and destruction. The answer is, 'not that often'. In the end, all things can lead to violence and destruction and for all the reasons man chooses to kill one another, religion is low on that list.

Alright. If it's not relevant, then the qualification of those 10 wars being the deadliest is superfluous and coincidental. Therefore, I should conceivably be able to select any 10 wars and end up with an equally cogent microcosm demonstrating your position. 10, better yet, 100 out of 100 wars have been religious wars.

So damage done, not that important to the point being made. I'm not talking about how deadly our technology is when we decided to go to war, I'm talking about how often we choose to fight over specific subjects.

Yes. The progressive efficiency with which we can harm one another, in conjunction with poor tabulation of ancient death tolls, throws a couple wrenches in the cogency of a damage-done analysis. But the argument from frequency is just as thin.

Bill eats several plates of pulled pork. It fills him up. The next night, Bill eats one plate of beef. It does not. Is pulled pork more filling than beef? Frequency-of-intake is one factor in determining how filling a meat product may be. The quantity in one instance of feeding would also be.

Likewise, the frequency in which religion is fought over is certainly relevant, but not the sole variable for the question of whether or not religion's danger is noteworthy. To make the claim you are making, you would either have to presume or disregard relevant information.

We fight over mud more then we fight over religion.

* mud : territory and resources. I think you could try a little harder to drop the rhetoric.

All things are dangerous... even the sun. The amount of danger is a pretty important factor when trying to determin as to wether or not something is bad. After all, food is dangerous but it provides where more positive aspects then it does dangers, so therefor, it's a good thing. That's just how life works.

So here's another layer you're wedging in to the discussion. "Is religion good or bad?" Obviously, this is not the same question as, "is religion dangerous," or "is religion fought over more or less frequently than other things."

This is going to come off as rude, but you're demonstrating a habit of making a conclusion, and then hedging that conclusion on the outcome of one factor, regardless of what other factors may be relevant.

Religion... not that dangerous. More people die in car accidents a year then they do in suicide bombings. And more people die of heart problems then they do in car accidents. once again, religion is down there on the list of 'shit that'll get you killed'.

And that is the only conceivable danger it poses? You just exploded the discussion into a generalization of 'good' and 'bad' but only wish to discuss it in terms of body count now, when you've also made the case that body count is irrelevant.

---

Right... we can't have atheism rubbing off it's bad smell on agnosticism.

---

At 1/19/11 06:59 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered.

If you accept that you can't (classically) know... you are agnostic.

Not answering the question is implicitly atheistic.

---

At 1/18/11 03:25 PM, CacheHelper wrote: No, I'm not. People are for or against stem cell research based on their own personal morals.

The emphasis here is misleading. People are generally immensely social creatures, as well as affirmation-seeking. For these reasons, abstractly, religion is both pervasive and subsequently influential.

Some of these people pull their morals from religion, others do not. You can be religious and for stem-cell research. You can be non-religious and against stem cell research.

Yup.

The opinions of a controversial subject are not directly tied to religion

They very well can be and many religious people would hold contempt for the stance you've just taken.

Therefor, religion is not to blame for the opposition to stem-cell research.

Partly? Yes. Completely? No.

If religion is to blame for stem-cell research then it's also the reason the average person doesn't murder every time they get upset. You can't pick and choose what morals do and don't come from religion just because some fit your argument of a better world without God.

You're begging the question. Do you think the above is why I "pick and choose"?

Yeah.. so what? Do you really want me to add up the numbers for you... because only 3 of the dealiest 10 wars in history are related to religion. And even some of those are gross numbers based on the breakdown of a nations census then it is on actually accounted for deaths.

Hold on there...

We start with: you claiming that religion isn't so dangerous and corroborate it with a tally of wars.

Then: You are introduced to the concept that not all wars are equally 'dangerous.'

Then: You say that's irrelevant to your point.

Then: When pressed, you use a statistic that relies on the notion that not all wars are equally 'dangerous' to make the same point you had prior - the point which you described as being not relevant to the notion that not-all-wars-are-equally-dangerous.

The real reason we don't compare numbers is because most wars don't have a body count... since record keeping was pretty much shit until recently.

So... despite the fact that tallying wars is not representative of damage-done, it's a valid means to represent damage-done, because we can't accurately gauge the damage-done?

We don't know how many people died in the Crusades... so, we can only go by what we do know.

Except the conclusion (that religion is not dangerous) you drew from what we do know (a tallying of wars) is a non-sequitur.

You can't just 'assume' more people died in religious wars you have to prove they did... so good luck with that.

Except, if I'm to assume you do now consider the tally-of-wars alone insufficient (according to your remarks about the 3 vs 10 deadliest wars), then you would be implicitly assuming that the number of religious wars in your original tally netted a smaller amount of damage. Which you should, by your own argument, dismiss.

Though, I don't really understand why religion has to be the number one cause in order to be considered dangerous. Perhaps, since you seem to understand the positions that I, as an atheist, am suppose to have, you could explain that to me.

---

At 1/18/11 01:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 1/17/11 09:19 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: no means necessitates the latter.

Agreed. So the death of religion doesn't automatically mean that everybody is going to be ok with stem cell research and abortion. To claim that these fields of science are being held back only because of religion goes against everything you just said.

No. Not everything. It goes against, "does any of this mean that moral values against stem cell research only exist because of faith? No." And that was an aside from the refutation of mine, which you're quoting above, to a false dilemma you proposed. It does not go against the refutation of the false dilemma. There are two issues which you're treating as one. Additionally, in order to agree with the portion you quoted, you would have to disagree with what you said just prior to it.

In one instance you claim that one condition necessitates the other. Then you agree that it does not. Which is it?

And none of the above goes against the idea that religion has played a substantial role. < that would be what my assessment looks like before you misrepresent it as an all-or-nothing presumption.

And I guess since you didn't like that question I asked before, I'll try a different one...

Would you say death and/or property damage are generally inherent threats of war (and often fulfilled)?

---

At 1/16/11 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Given that there is no consensus

Not sure how that renders the two statements equivalent. If that's your stance then it directly contradicts that there is (was) a consensus.

If you consider the two statements equivalent, then { scientific consensus } is equivalent to { mixed scientific but popular support }, thereby denying both when denying one.

However, I'm pretty sure you're a proponent of the idea that there was { mixed scientific but popular support } while a critic of the idea that there was { scientific consensus }. This however, would render your original remarks about consensus science, citing a consensus as being incorrect, rather dishonest - since you didn't really consider it a consensus.

---

At 1/17/11 11:07 PM, TheFarseer wrote: as though Communism's status as an atheistic philosophy had nothing to do with persecuting theists.

... as though a swan's status as a bird had nothing to do with it having wings.

The relationship between say... positions on stem cell research and religion... versus the relationship between... atheism and the persecution of theists... is fundamentally different. You seem to be trying to imply the former relationship to the latter. The purpose of the swan analogy was to demonstrate how backwards your proposition is. Our attributing to the swan the classification of 'bird' follows from it having wings. The existence of its wings do not follow from our calling it a bird. Our attributing to communism the classification of 'atheistic' follows from it commonly rejecting the divine. It's rejection of the divine is not authorized nor decreed by atheism, but rather from communist political philosophy - which we describe as atheistic due to that very reason.

In short, you are conflating attribute with authority.