'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[onewheeldave]

But it isn't a guess is it? There's plenty of evidence out there.

I can't remember who it was now and I haven't got time to look but somebody in an earlier post gave an example of looking at the levels of religiosity in a society and then forming a conclusion as to standards of living, equality issues for women and gays, human rights abuses etc. Every example you look at the higher the levels of religiosity the more inequalities in society.

 

This is a good point (in reply to the above)-

 

The correlation (if there is one) doesn't demonstrate cause. Religiosity could be a reaction to inequality, rather than a cause.

 

and to this reply-

 

In that case you'd have to ask the question............has it been successful, if so why and if not why not when it's compared to alternate ways of managing people and the societies they live in?

What would your conclusion be?

 

I'd have to say- 'well.... no'- it's a reply to pininsho's objection pointing out that a correlation does not equate to a causation, which means that the examples put forward are not actually evidence.

 

So, before skipping off onto another point, it would be good if you either admit that, after all, there is no evidence for the theory that religious belief is the cause of the bloodsheds, or, go ahead and supply some valid evidence for that point of view.

 

If we're going to have a focused discussion based on rationality, it's important not to just skip onto a different point each time someone points out a problem with the previous claim made.

[six45ive]

The correlation (if there is one) doesn't demonstrate cause. Religiosity could be a reaction to inequality, rather than a cause.

 

In that case you'd have to ask the question............has it been successful, if so why and if not why not when it's compared to alternate ways of managing people and the societies they live in?

What would your conclusion be?

 

I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer as to whether you think there is a correlation there which demonstrates a cause or not so we can move the conversation on or for you to provide evidence of my highlighted section.

[Grahame]

But it isn't a guess is it? There's plenty of evidence out there.

I can't remember who it was now and I haven't got time to look but somebody in an earlier post gave an example of looking at the levels of religiosity in a society and then forming a conclusion as to standards of living, equality issues for women and gays, human rights abuses etc. Every example you look at the higher the levels of religiosity the more inequalities in society.

 

In the west it is the governments who are the law makers and it is the governments who uphold the law. The same thing happens in Muslim countries but people on forums call it the Islam religion. This is like calling our laws on abortion, divorce, gay relationships, the banking system etc. the "Western Religion" when it is not a religion at all.

 

Then people on forums who find the Muslim religion abhorrent somehow associate all religion, which in my case consists of going to church, with the atrocities perpetrated in other countries. In reality there is no comparison, you are not comparing like with like and the Christian church does not condone the stoning of women caught in adultery and neither does it condone the severing of a hand for theft. Besides which it is the judicial system that sets the law, not Christians, so please do not compare Christianity with Islam, there is no comparison between the two. Islam includes the offices of government, administration and law. Christianity does not, Christianity is a belief and that is all.

 

 

[six45ive]

In the west it is the governments who are the law makers and it is the governments who uphold the law. The same thing happens in Muslim countries but people on forums call it the Islam religion. This is like calling our laws on abortion, divorce, gay relationships, the banking system etc. the Western religion when it is not a religion at all.

 

Then people on forums who find the Muslim religion abhorrent somehow associate all religion, which in my case consists of going to church, with the atrocities perpetrated in other countries. In reality there is no comparison and you are not comparing like with like.

 

I've just mentioned on the muslim thread that xtianity has been through extensive moderation over many years as science and technology have produced the modern miracles that religion can only dream of and it's because of this that xtianity in the civilised world has become so watered down as to be pretty much impotent with just the few closeted hard liners like yourself that need to be kept in place (metaphorically of course).

 

Islam is a different matter however as I find the cultural practices of even so called moderate muslims to be incompatible with western values and therefore should not be tolerated hence the link in my signature to the One Law for All campaign.

Here's another article on the wonderful attributes that sharia law is giving to this country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html

[Grahame]

I've just mentioned on the muslim thread that xtianity has been through extensive moderation over many years as science and technology have produced the modern miracles that religion can only dream of and it's because of this that xtianity in the civilised world has become so watered down as to be pretty much impotent with just the few closeted hard liners like yourself that need to be kept in place (metaphorically of course).

 

Islam is a different matter however as I find the cultural practices of even so called moderate muslims to be incompatible with western values and therefore should not be tolerated hence the link in my signature to the One Law for All campaign.

Here's another article on the wonderful attributes that sharia law is giving to this country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html

 

 

One Law for All. Fair enough. We went through that in the middle ages when different regions had their own laws and these were codified into one law called "Common Law."

 

If people want to come and live in England then they are living under English Common Law and that is how it remains. Otherwise England will be returning to medieval days and different laws and we don't want that.

 

I will correct you on one thing, Jesus never set himself up in opposition to the government of the day and always said to render to Caesar what was Caesars. This was originally Norman churchmen appropriating powers to themselves that they were not entitled to. If anything Christianity is about giving not taking and that is the way of Christianity. Unfortunately it is not the way of the Church and again there is confusion in the mind of the public between the "Church" and "Christianity," the two are not the same.

 

 

[Wildcat]

I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer as to whether you think there is a correlation there which demonstrates a cause or not so we can move the conversation on or for you to provide evidence of my highlighted section.

 

My answers firstly making the point correlation does not indicate causation, and then provided an example where religion helped facilitate a liberalisation (the shift of power from aristocracy to merchant classes through protestant agitation), would appear to be a fairly clear response that there is no causation. Indeed my understanding is that people tend to turn to religion because of oppression and in opposition to it, just as much as religious structures are used to defend the status quo.

 

A more recent example than the enlightenment period would be the role of the Catholic Church and liberation theology in Central america.

 

Some more on Liberation Theology and the history of the Church leading progressive reforms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

 

Whilst you are there you might want to reflect on the example of Francis of Assisi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

[six45ive]

In that case you'd have to ask the question............has it been successful, if so why and if not why not when it's compared to alternate ways of managing people and the societies they live in?

What would your conclusion be?

 

My answers firstly making the point correlation does not indicate causation, and then provided an example where religion helped facilitate a liberalisation (the shift of power from aristocracy to merchant classes through protestant agitation), would appear to be a fairly clear response that there is no causation. Indeed my understanding is that people tend to turn to religion because of oppression and in opposition to it, just as much as religious structures are used to defend the status quo.

 

A more recent example than the enlightenment period would be the role of the Catholic Church and liberation theology in Central america.

 

Some more on Liberation Theology and the history of the Church leading progressive reforms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

 

Whilst you are there you might want to reflect on the example of Francis of Assisi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

 

I'm not quite sure whether you genuinely didn't understand my question or you're just trolling. The question is about judging how fair a society based on religiosity is compared to a society that isn't religious or pseudoreligious (as highlighted above) or in other words majority secular and as there wasn't any non religious societies (that we would recognise as secular today) in Francis of Assisi times that example is totally irrelevent.

Your other example highlights a religious organisation combining with a pseudoreligious ideology thereby creating a fairly ugly mongrel that's old before its time and needs putting down.

Your answer in no way provides any evidence that religious dominated societies treat women, gays, the disabled, people of different religions and no religion etc better than a broadly secular society.

So maybe you'd like to try again and make it relevent to the world we're living in today while your at it. I look forward to seeing the results.

Anyway I'm off to watch the fireworks go up and disappear in a puff of smoke (a bit like your ideas) at the After Dark event but I'll try and answer some of the other points on this thread sometime this weekend.

[Phanerothyme]

Your answer in no way provides any evidence that religious dominated societies treat women, gays, the disabled, people of different religions and no religion etc better than a broadly secular society.

 

 

Onewheeldave already answered that pretty succinctly I thought. Or was it only me that saw it?

[pininsho]

Onewheeldave already answered that pretty succinctly I thought. Or was it only me that saw it?

 

I think what six45ive was trying to ask was which society, mainly religious or mainly secular, has the worse human rights abuses against those particular groups of people.

[onewheeldave]

The point I was making was in reference to

 

Originally Posted by pininsho View Post

But it isn't a guess is it? There's plenty of evidence out there.

I can't remember who it was now and I haven't got time to look but somebody in an earlier post gave an example of looking at the levels of religiosity in a society and then forming a conclusion as to standards of living, equality issues for women and gays, human rights abuses etc. Every example you look at the higher the levels of religiosity the more inequalities in society.

 

where wildcat pointed out-

 

Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post

The correlation (if there is one) doesn't demonstrate cause. Religiosity could be a reaction to inequality, rather than a cause.

 

six45ive has not addressed that point whatsoever- he's chosen to head off on the tangent of insisting that someone other evidence to prove that religious societies have a better track record on equality etc.

 

Which is a valid enough tangent- however, the fact remains that Wildcats actual point has not been either addressed, or acknowledged as valid.

 

The fact is that the record of religious societies treatment of minorites etc, is utterly irrelevant when it comes to Wildcats's point above, cos it's putting forward the possibility that those treatments of minorites are caused by something other than religious belief, and, that it's entirely possible that the increase in religious belief in those societies is itself caused by those other things.

 

So, let's take as the possible cause, something like poverty- the hypothesis would be that ill-treatment of minorities follows from widespread poverty.

 

Also, a growth in religious belief could follow- as poverty bites and suffering increases, more people turn to religion.

 

Thus, looked at from outside, we have a highly religious society with a bad track-record when it comes to treatment of minorities.

 

Anti-theists look at that and say 'Ah- see- there's another religious society which ill-treats minorities, therefore we can conclude religion is bad'.

 

However, a true rationalist can conclude no such thing from that case- other than that there is a correlation.

 

To conclude that religious belief, in that case, is the cause of the ill-treatment, is not rational- it could well be that both religious belief (in that case) & the ill-treatment, are both caused by poverty.

 

Neither does wildcat have to try to demonstrate that poverty actually is the cause of either (or both)- the simple fact that the hypothesis is as valid as the alternative is sufficient to wreck any claim based on the assumption that religion is the cause of the ill-treatment.