Values like:Old Man G Funk said:
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not steal
etc.
How are you glossing over the main point, ADD?
Please quote some of this hateful propaganda form the NT please.
Dumbsville UK
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not steal
etc.
How are you glossing over the main point, ADD?
Please quote some of this hateful propaganda form the NT please.
Only in your mind.BurlyShirley said:
I'll let Silver's comment speak for me since I agree with it.
You clearly have no understanding of religion. Why am I arguing with you?Old Man G Funk said:
I'm late, I'll have to get to it tomorrow. I promise.BurlyShirley said:
Yeah, right. No understanding, except that I've read it.BurlyShirley said:
Silver's path leads us down the road of the chicken and the egg.Old Man G Funk said:
And you dont understand why we dont sacrifice goats anymore? Yep, its ADD.Old Man G Funk said:
The South was just as or more devoutly Christian than the North. It was something other than religion that convinced those Northern Christian abolitionists that slavery was immoral and convinced Southerners Chistian slave-owners that it was their natural right.BurlyShirley said:
Religion is a backdrop, not a basis. If it were the basis, there would be a far greater alignment within a religion, and greater misalignment with atheists/agnostics. As it is, you will find just as more alignment between mainstream right Christians and mainstream right atheists than between the mainstream right Christians and the mainstream left Christians.
Backdrop.
You prove my point, just as you disprove it. Religion is not the cause for the slavery, but if you think that modern christianity would be accepting of such a practice, you are mistaken. Those mis-educated christians that believed slavery was an acceptable practice only believed so because they were educated by twisted greedy bastards. Not devout christians.ohio said:
ohio said:
Yeah, because the northeast wasnt first poplulated by devout christians and none of their influence still exists.We're so close to agreement on this. I didn't claim religion was the cause of Slavery or abolition. Religion happened to be the framework in which people expressed their morals in that situation. I wouldn't claim that religion didn't have some influence on those morals, but it could NOT have been the foundation. If religion's purpose is to provide moral guidance, how can the same text lead to fundamentally opposed core beliefs? I suppose it's possible that Christianity is a poor example of religion, but I don't think that's the case. I think what is the case is that people's morals come from other sources, some deep seated and genetic/evolutionary, some from society/peers/parents, and some from personal experience... religion just provides people the terms in which to express these morals.BurlyShirley said:
I don't think modern Western society, including Christians, would accept slavery. But that belief would be consistent across Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and athiests too. It's hard to claim Christianity is the source of the belief when every non-Christian, including those that don't even believe in god, believes the same thing, and at one time a pretty large group of Christians didn't believe that same thing.BurlyShirley said:
Hmmm, that goes against your standard belief in personal responsibility. Additionally you're effectively stating that in this case society dictated the morals, not the religion. What I'm saying is that is always the case, but it was two different societies that were dictating the moral standards and framing it in terms of the same religion.BurlyShirley said:
Devout Christians who held beliefs VERY different from the devout Christians in their homelands. Why were their morals so different? Because they were influenced by different factors, even though the religion was the same. Sure their influence still exists, and is part of the foundation for our modern set of morals, but it came from those people NOT their religion.BurlyShirley said:
I did indeed mean better off....Old Man G Funk said:
So you argue that man would be better off had the bible and various other religious texts not existed. That makes an assumption that whatever filled their place would have been better (it is unlikely that the vacuum left by removal of religion would have been empty).
If we discount the existence of god as being irrational (ie. we are atheists) then by definition all religious texts are the work of man anyway so there is good reason to assume that whatever would have existed in their place would have been equally good or bad.
Therefore the irrational belief that I was talking about is your belief that man would have been better off without the bible/koran/talmud etcetera. The only rational conclusion is that things would have been exactly the same, just different...
What I'm arguing is that man would have been better off without religions that taught hate, intolerance, murder, etc. If our religions actually taught us to love one another and be tolerant, things would have been much better. Or, if our religions were neutral even, things would have been better. If we had no religion, it's true that things might have been just as bad, but removing the blight of the teachings of intolerance and hate would probably have been a good thing. Once again, I freely admit that I can't prove it, it's just my opinion, and we don't know what would have happened.fluff said:So you argue that man would be better off had the bible and various other religious texts not existed. That makes an assumption that whatever filled their place would have been better (it is unlikely that the vacuum left by removal of religion would have been empty).
If we discount the existence of god as being irrational (ie. we are atheists) then by definition all religious texts are the work of man anyway so there is good reason to assume that whatever would have existed in their place would have been equally good or bad.
Therefore the irrational belief that I was talking about is your belief that man would have been better off without the bible/koran/talmud etcetera. The only rational conclusion is that things would have been exactly the same, just different...
It is your opinion that these religions teach us to hate. I can make an equally valid argument that they teach us to love, in which case we may have been worse off without them. Your biased opinion of religion skews the rest of your position.Old Man G Funk said:
The reason the USSR was brought up was that it was a regime that eschewed the role of relgion in shaping its morals and actions and the result was certainly not a good advertisment for man's nature.
This all must be viewed in the light of the fact the you belief that religion was man-made anyway. So your argument is that had man come up with a better basis for control/moral framework/society then we would be better off, which is no more enlightening than saying if we were nicer to each other then life would be nicer.
I love how you try to argue that the OT doesn't count, until you want to pull out the 10 Commandments.BurlyShirley said:
So, let's look at the values that the Bible teaches.
1. We can start with the story of Adam and Eve, which happens to be one of my favorites. God creates Adam and Eve and puts them in the garden, within easy reach of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. She knows ahead of time (omniscience) that they will eat it, but doesn't nothing to protect it. She does not give them the knowledge of what good or evil is (they gain that from eating the fruit). They eat the fruit, as expected, and she punishes them and all their offspring for all of eternity. How "moral" is that?
2. If a child is rebellious, what should we do with it? Kill it of course (Deut. 21:18-21 and Lev. 20:9)
3. If a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night? Kill her. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Who created evil in the first place? God of course. (Isaiah 45:7)
5. What do you do after you are victorious in battle? You sacrifice your virgin daughter of course. (Judges 11:30-39)
6. What happens to children who tease bald men? Bears come out of the woods (by god's command) and kill the little buggers. (II Kings 2:23-24)
7. How much is a woman worth? Half a man of course. (Lev. 27:1-7)
8. If a man rapes a virgin, what happens? If she is betrothed, you kill them both (Deut. 22:23-24) and if she isn't she marries the man who raped her and he pays a fine (Deut. 22:28-29)
9. Mentally handicapped? Hmmm, can't come in to church. (Lev. 21:16-23)
10. If you read Psalm 137:8-9, you should be happy when you dash children's heads against the rocks.
11. What about the complaint that religion keeps people from committing incest or rape? Is it anywhere in the commandments? Nope.
Let's move onto the NT.
12. How should one view his/her parents? Why, according to Jesus, one should hate his/her parents. (Hopefully it doesn't get you stoned to death.) (Luke 14:26 and Matt. 10:37-38)
13. You claim it was religion that led us away from slaver. What does Jesus say about it? He advocates beating slaves, but not more than they deserve of course. (Luke 12:47-48)
14. Jesus is the prince of peace, right? Then why did he come here to start wars? Is Jesus telling us to be violent? (Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:49-51)
15. Jesus also recommends castration for followers. (Matt. 19:11-12)
16. How should women act in church? Paul says they should be silent and learn from their husbands at home. (I Cor. 14:34-35, I Cor. 11:3, Col. 3:18, and Tim. 2:11-15)
17. Divorce? Deut. 24:1 gives some grounds, Paul says no way, no how (I Cor. 7:10), and Jesus? Well, Jesus says only if the wife cheats (so too bad for her if she's getting beaten every night.) (Matt. 5:31-32)
I wanted to save the genocide for last, so here it is. Saul is ordered to commit genocide on the Amalekites. He is to kill every single man, woman, child, infant, cattle, sheep, camel, and donkey. It's not enough that he defeat the army, but he must leave nothing alive. (1 Sam 15:3) Saul spares the opposing king though and he keeps some of the best livestock. Big mistake. God decides that Saul will lose his seat as king to David and torments Saul with an evil spirit for the rest of his days.
So, Burly, you were correct that it doesn't say to kill the mentall retarded. It does say that anyone with any defect can not come near the church, which would mean that god has already damned them, but hey, my mistake. Of course, with all the other killing and great examples in the Bible of mercy and so forth, I think you can understand why I figured that killing them was the correct thing to do (according to the Bible.)
Please do. I've come up with numerous examples of the "morals" of the Bible, and there are more to choose from.fluff said:
That's a rather simplistic view of the USSR. As I've already said, religion had inserted itself as a power player in political structures in Europe and Russia in the past. In order to be the supreme ruler, Stalin HAD TO eliminate it.
Yes, religion was man-made by psychopaths (who condone slavery, the subjugation of women, killing people for minor offenses, etc.), and we've been passing on those teachings for many generations. If someone had sat down and said, this is crazy, we'd be better off.
Fluff, in making this argument, you are standing up for hatred, intolerance, and ignorance and irrationality. Do you really think that being irrational is beneficial and better than being rational?
I see you searched back through your old emails and found one of those anti-christian ones. None of the crap you mentioned says anything about retarded babies or condoning slavery. If you would like to do some "actual" research and find me the passage where jesus says its ok to beat slaves, Id be very surprised. I dont have a bible on hand, but if you could put the actual words down, it'd show me something.Old Man G Funk said:
Those dozen or so lines of text some retard picked out and emailed around the world seem to ignore the thousands of other pages that preach peace and love. Why is it that you ignore all that? ADD like I thought? Or is it that your disdain for religon (you're so anti-mainstream dude, yeah , rock on, slayer) clouds your rational judgement?
...and you claim to know about religion, but still havent demonstrated that you understand the changes from OT to NT. Just because "you've read it" doesnt mean you understand it. If I gave "a brief history of time" to my 5 year old little brother, he could read it.
What, beyond 'thou shalt not kill', 'love thy neighbour as theyself', 'turn the other cheek', 'forgive them for they know not what they do', 'cast out the beam from thine own eye before casting out the speck in your brother's', 'forgive him seventy times seven'...Old Man G Funk said:
Sorry mate, I have better things to do than score quotations. If you know the bible as you say you do then you already know such quotes exist. But you won't seek them out as they are not in favour of your position.
Much of the OT is basically chronicles of Jewish history, much of Judaism seems to be a worship of their struggle to survive, hence it is bloody.
No more simplistic than you view of relogion. So it is religion's fault when it is the basis of society and religion's fault when it is not the basis of society? Take it away and you'll just have to find something else to blame, or do you have such unshakeable faith in man's better inner-nature that you cannot countenance 'evil' coming from anywhere else?Old Man G Funk said:
What came first, the psychopath or the religion? You wish to blame an abstract contract for evil deeds rather than the perpetrators? Man has had centuries to come up with a better system than religion, what has been stopping him? God?Old Man G Funk said:
How the hell am I standing up for irrationality etc? I am not standing for anything apart from logic? How can a construct of man be the cause of man's behaviour? Man is the destroyer, man is the irrational beast, man is never happier than when he's fvcking his brother, psychopaths can be very rationalOld Man G Funk said:
Where have I said irrationality is preferable to rationality? It is, however, more common without a doubt.
Um, I did give you the passage where Jesus talks about beating slaves. Tune down the self-righteousness a little bit and you might see it. Before you get done patting yourself on the back, you might actually read what I wrote. Those didn't come from some email that passed around. I did some research and pulled those up. Plus, I find it hard to swallow when you talk about rational judgement while defending irrational thought.BurlyShirley said:I see you searched back through your old emails and found one of those anti-christian ones. None of the crap you mentioned says anything about retarded babies or condoning slavery. If you would like to do some "actual" research and find me the passage where jesus says its ok to beat slaves, Id be very surprised. I dont have a bible on hand, but if you could put the actual words down, it'd show me something.
Those dozen or so lines of text some retard picked out and emailed around the world seem to ignore the thousands of other pages that preach peace and love. Why is it that you ignore all that? ADD like I thought? Or is it that your disdain for religon (you're so anti-mainstream dude, yeah , rock on, slayer) clouds your rational judgement?
...and you claim to know about religion, but still havent demonstrated that you understand the changes from OT to NT. Just because "you've read it" doesnt mean you understand it. If I gave "a brief history of time" to my 5 year old little brother, he could read it.
I gave you quotes and examples from both the NT and the OT. You are the one who doesn't seem to get it. If the OT is thrown out, then it is NOT the same god, but it is. If the OT is throw out, then the 10 Commandments doesn't hold weight for Christians, but it does. IIRC, Jesus talks about not following certain parts of the old Mosaic Law (his tighter restrictions on divorce is one example) but not throwing it out completely. You seem to be laboring under the BS that most churches dish out, where they cherry pick the evolved societal morals that we all enjoy and somehow attribute them to the Bible. If you follow the Bible, however, you should be trying to kill me since I am an unbeliever, so sayeth Jesus. (Luke 19:27)
You have yet to put down the words of an actual passage. You did that "research" my a$$. Ive seen most that crap before in one email or another.Old Man G Funk said:
You say "You seem to be laboring under the BS that most churches dish out, where they cherry pick the evolved societal morals that we all enjoy and somehow attribute them to the Bible" yet you say that religion is evil. How can that be? You make ZERO sense.
You DO NOT UNDERSTAND why Christians follow the new testament vs. the old. You've demonstrated that. How am I being irrational by asking you to stop ignoring 99% of the bible when you're bashing 1%. I am not a christian. I could give a ****. You ask 99% of Christians what jesus preached, and theyll say "peace and love" yet you think it is evil. WTF is wrong with you?
And those are all contradicted many times over.fluff said:
But, the stories don't show that. They show a war-like people led by a war-like god conquering those around them.
Sorry, but this sounds like a straw man argument. Yes, evil comes from man of course, because I don't believe anything comes from god, since there isn't one. Teaching evil, however, leads to more evil. Teaching cultural morality leads to less evil.
No, if someone kills another, I'm not going to say, "Religion made him do it." I would say that religion could have been a contributing factor, and certainly teaching hate and irrationality is not a factor that works against evil deeds.
By assuming Burly's argument that people need religion and that we would be 10 worse off without any religion. What you are saying, in effect, is that if people were rational, then we would all be worse off. Therefore, irrationality is better than rationality.
No. You've got it wrong here. Im saying that if people were rational, there would not be a need for religion. And things would be perfect. But people are NOT rational. They are just too stupid, and need a handbook.Old Man G Funk said:
If you were following my arguments, you would know that I say it is irrational and it teaches evil. If one really sits down and reads the Bible, it teaches evil. Luckily for us, society has evolved to the point where even those who profess to follow the "good book" don't.BurlyShirley said:
Your 99% is way, way off. I defy you to back that up.
I'm also sorry that you are unable to actually look up a citation that is easily obtainable. The norm for quoting Biblical citations is to give the book, chapter, and passage as I have done. If I were to cut and paste all of those chapters out, it would make my post (which was already way too long as it was) way, way too long. I suggest you actually use the internets and your brain to look up the passages. I'll even give you a good site to do it. Try www.biblegateway.com.
As for the "research," I did know about lots of that already through reading all kinds of resources from all kinds of sources, so it that sense maybe I shouldn't call it "research" but your argument that you can disregard all the examples I've cited simply because you think it was some email of some sort is ludicrous and basically a variant of an ad hominem attack. Bring some substance, especially since you were all about waving your, "Mission Accomplished" banner yesterday.
Which people? How smart does one need to be in order to not "need a handbook?" What's the IQ level required?BurlyShirley said:
Also, you did say that we would be 10 times worse off without religion. The funny thing is that this is just another chicken and egg thing. We teach irrationality, then when people embrace it we say that it is necessary. If we were to teach rationality would we still need to embrace irrationality?
Edit: Also it begs the question of what handbook is necessary? Having a handbook that teaches hatred or a handbook that teaches love, compassion, tolerance, and rationality?
If you want to prove a point, you need to do it. Im not going to do your legwork. So far you've shown me that you can open an anti-christian email and that you dont understand religion. Good job.Old Man G Funk said:
Apparently at least 1 point higher than yours.Old Man G Funk said:
That's just plain weak. I do not agree with Shirley's statement any more than I agree with you saying man would be better off without religion, it is unknowable and unquantifiable. If you are looking to try and score points in an argument using such tactics than there is no discussion here and you win, ok?Old Man G Funk said:
If you actually give a rat's arse about talking about the causes of 'evil' and the benefits of rationality then by all means continue.
Here are my points:
Religion is no more inherently bad than it is inherently good.
Every passage of every religious text that preaches good which is contradicted by one preaching evil also, by definition can be used to show that it contradicts said evil-preaching passage - a null result in effect. Therefore until someone establishes an accepted interpretation of each and every passage and tots them all up we have no result.
Religious texts are created by man. There really should be no surprise that they are contradictory.
God is created by man. There really should be no surprise that he appears in religious texts.
Man is respsonsible for his actions.
I'm saying we'd be better off not teaching irrationality and hate. A religion doesn't necessarily have to teach those things, but the ones we currently have all do. If I misunderstood your argument, then I apologize. I sincerely thought you were trying to argue Burly's point. We are in agreement that what would happen without religion is unknowable and unquantifiable and I've stated that numerous times. I think we would probably be better off without the current religions, and I definitely disagree with the sentiment that people NEED religion in order to not go on killing sprees.fluff said:
I think irrationality is inherently bad in this context. Denying reality in this context leads to wars over who has the better god, etc.
Not necessarily. In the case of thou shalt not kill, the message to take away is that thou shalt not kill, except when a betrothed virgin girl is raped, when god commands you to commit genocide, etc. I don't see how one can say that thou shalt not kill is really valid in this case.
Yes, all of that is correct and I'm not arguing that. But, I feel a personal responsibility to stand up and argue against the irrationality. I also feel that personal responsibility to argue against what I see as hate speech (in the Bible.) The reason for that is because I don't see being irrational as a necessary thing for people as Burly does. I don't see that it is necessary to teach hatred. In fact, I see the opposite. If we don't teach hatred and irrationality, but rather peace and rationality, then people can behave better towards their fellow man.
All you've shown is that you can throw out logical fallacies, make assertions and not back them up, and sling personal attacks at me. You made the original claim that people NEED religion. It is YOUR point that needs to be made. I did my part and provided the easily locatable citations, and I gave you an easy website to use to look them up for the direct quotations, as is standard practice. The fact that you are too lazy to do so is not my problem. The fact that you made an assumption that this came from an anti-Christian email (which it didn't) and that somehow it invalidates the argument (which it wouldn't) is also your problem.BurlyShirley said:
That's demonstrably false. I don't follow a handbook, yet I also don't go out on killing sprees. If you want to actually discuss things like an adult, let me know.BurlyShirley said:
Edit: To clarify, you can stop making personal attacks and stop ignoring the substance of my posts and actually start addressing the content for once.
And those 99% of Christians are cherry picking modern society's morals from Jesus's teachings. The morals are a function of our society, not of the Bible. I keep saying this but I'll repeat it one more time: we know this because 99% of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists will tell you they hold to those same morals. It has little or nothing to do with the text or the bible r the church they choose to go to. The moral code is created by us, and changes with time as a result of societal need and experience. If it were founded on religion, it would be MUCH more constant over time, and much more diverse from religion to religion.BurlyShirley said:
What he said.ohio said:
Do you think people need anything in order to not go on killing sprees? If so what is it?Old Man G Funk said:
Very few wars have been fought over who has the better god. Far more have been fought over access to natural resources, which arguably is rational rather than irrational, so perhaps rationality is not all its cracked up to be?Old Man G Funk said:
Equally I can reverse the argument and say how can killing virgins be valid when you are told not to kill (and I think most people would agree that the Ten Commandments trump the minor laws (well at least until Moses carelessly dropped them).Old Man G Funk said:
OK, let's separate religion, irrationality, and hatred from each other and peace and rationality from each other because there is no reason to group them like that except your personal viewpoint.Old Man G Funk said:
I started this bunfight by saying that I thought belief in God was irrational. Hence religion is irrational. But not necessarily evil, hate-filled or warmongering.
Rationality on the other hand is not necessarily good and peace-filled. (Furthermore we should bear in mind Shirley's argument that 50%, or more, of people are not capable of independent rational thought and need to be 'led'.)
We are left with the question of which system, irrationality and religion or rationality (and ?) is more beneficial to man. If we can demonstrate that rationality creates more disharmony and conflict than religion than it is of no benefit to man.
If we start (for the sake of argument) from the postion that we need to prove that rationality is more peace-making and beneficial to man how can we demonstrate that?
Our evolved cultural morality. Please don't say that it comes from religion, as it most obviously does not.fluff said:
I beg to differ with this in part. I've said that greed is the number one source for conflict, but religion is the number rationale (pun intended) used. Without religion, king x would not be able to whip up the troops in righteous anger in order for king x to plunder king y's treasures (and personally profit from it.)
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. All the laws are commands from god. You do not disobey god's command to kill a raped, betrothed virgin.
And the fact that the religions in question group irrationality and hatred, but for the sake of argument let's separate them.
Correct. Religion, as a concept (and ignoring the empirical ones we could look at) itself is not any of those things.
I'm not at all convinced that Burly is correct with that number.
Rationality isn't always good and peace-filled. In fact, it is neutral, as is religion, in terms of good or evil. I do think that rationality is preferrable to irrationality, however.
Good question. We could start by cataloging all the instances that irrationality has led to bad or good and do the same for rational arguments. For the former, we have tons of examples. For the latter, I would point to abolitionists for starters, many of which made arguments that were not rooted in religion. We could point to scientific advancement and education. Any other ideas now that I got the ball rolling?
Sheesh, this takes long enough without having to argue line by line but oh well;
Not to kill,
Not to steal,
Not to rape,
Not to lie,
Not to wage war,
That'll do me for starters.
It's irrelevant where it comes from as you cannot separate culture into nice little compartments, religion is a factor you cannot avoid.Old Man G Funk said:
So it's a tool, not a reason. So if it were not there another tool (nationalism/patriotism/fear) would be used. However it is still not the reason.Old Man G Funk said:
But you disobey his command not to kill? C'mon, you can't have it both ways. The laws contradict so either way you break God's command. Your interpretation is no better than mine, you can claim no stronger ground.Old Man G Funk said:
Ah, but if the religions themselves believe otherwise then they are not teaching hatred but love. I was taught not to kill by religion, and not to hate so anecdotally I have at least one example to cast doubt upon your assertion.Old Man G Funk said:
Me either. I think it's higher. In fact current statistics (check the first post) would indicate that it is so...Old Man G Funk said:
Fair enough, but that's a long way from some of your earlier statements.Old Man G Funk said:
I was hoping for a more abstract approach. Why would rationality lead us:Old Man G Funk said:
Not to kill,
Not to steal,
Not to rape,
Not to lie,
Not to wage war,
That'll do me for starters.
Sure you can. Nearly the entire fields of sociology, psychology and anthropoolgy are devoted to exactly that. Pick up a text on statistics for the social sciences and you will see that we've become quite sophisticated at isolating behaviors seperating them into components and the influences that lead to these behaviors.fluff said:
I would agree that it's a tool, but it's a tool we use to frame (output) our beliefs, not form (input) them. Religion or other -isms provide us a common language with which to communicate the morality we've developed. I'll explain more after your next quote.fluff said:
That these actions (or inactions, in this case) are beneficial to our society and our survival as a species can be shown fairly easily. I can explain each one of them in rational scientific terms if you'd like, but it will require a separate long post.fluff said:
However, we (society) did not think in terms of science and evolution
very recently in human history. Prior to that, though we had evolved as a society to figure out that killing each other was only beneficial on rare occasions, but didn't have rational scientific language to communicate why that was. Instead we used the concept of God to explain an feeling that we all shared... that it's generally a bad idea to kill each other if you are trying to preserve and advance the species.
Sorry about that, but I wanted to make sure you knew what I was referring to.fluff said:
What Ohio said, plus we can certainly separate out factors, like the teaching of hatred that are parts of the religion.
It's a tool that is used on the masses, yes. For the masses, it is a reason. There are other tools that are possible and can be just as irrational, but that's no argument to night fight against one that is known to be irrational.
Actually, I can. The commandment is not to murder. Killing for punishment is dealing out god's justice.
Teaching a bastardized form of Christianity does end up making it better in the end, because of our seculaly (and rationally) evolving society. It is done IN SPITE OF religion. The original objection, however, was to the idea that people need a guidebook, and if one were to simply read the Bible and not believe the perverted message that the church now gives, then the guidebook would be teaching people to commit all kinds of heinous things in the name of god.
The percentage of people that do believe in god, maybe. (If you add up the percentages, you actually get less than 50% I believe. 22% chose Creationism and 17% chose ID, correct? Added up that comes to 39%.) Those percentages aside, do you think that over 50% of people NEED the Bible (or some other irrational religious text) in order to keep from running around and killing for no reason? That was the original statement that I objected to.Me either. I think it's higher. In fact current statistics (check the first post) would indicate that it is so...
I'm not exactly sure how. I thought that I had made a point that I was speaking about the religions that we have, which I do think are a bigger force for evil than for good. In the abstract, that statement would not necessarily be true.
Because we rationally note that it is beneficial to society, which in turn helps us personally. We don't need the threat of hell in order to understand the concept of societal benefit.