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

[Wildcat]

Because, as usual, you don't address the point raised. You address the point from your own ideological standpoint rather than addressing the reality of the situation.

 

Which I've already stated I'm not interested about turning this into a political thread which is precisely what you're trying to do hence the red herring remark.

 

My whole argument is looking at the fundamentals of the role religion plays in the inequalities in society. I've provided plenty of evidence that this is the case. You however have tried to deflect the argument by looking at the inequalities that politics have on society without seeming to understand or accept that the whole political ethos in countries with high religiosity is underpinned by the religion in that particular society.

 

Once again you assert something without backing it up in any meaningful way.

There are numerous examples out there that simply prove your meaningless assertion wrong as all the religious and pseudo religiously ideological wars prove.

Religion is clearly the cause. It's about saying 'my faith is the correct one and yours is false hence we'll do things my way'.

Secularism is the very antithesis of this.

 

The one flawed bit of evidence you have cited doesn't even support your counter intuitive conclusions. Quite clearly the cause of inequality is the economic structure of the society. There is no need to provide proof what I have stated is obvious.

 

Can you expand on this statement?

 

As I said in post 628

 

Your research would be the one that uses as as a Religious indicator for selection and scoring:

 

Bible literalism (a proxy for the conservatism of mass faith)

 

So it is not a study about religion as a whole at all, its evidence is sourced from a particular type of religion. If you take its findings to be about religion in general then the study is guilty of selection bias and is worthless.

 

My answer is plain and simple. There is no need to expand on it further. There is clear Selection bias in its sampling.

 

Yes, basically theism but I would say it's also applicable in the less dogmatic religions such as buddism and jainism. Therefore it's findings are completely acceptable when looking at first world societies as this is the dominant type of religion here.

 

What has Theism to do with anything?

 

Also less dogmatic religions like the Church of England and a large proportion of the Christian community.

 

That's a very simplified and misleading statement on what I said.

It's probably best summed up by this quote from Steven Weinberg;

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

 

Best summed up in that it has nothing at all to do with what was being discussed?

 

But as I'd already brought up the point in 494 it's from this standpoint that I'm arguing.

 

This waffly barely readable post in response to Purdey?

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6852685&postcount=494

 

Here is the context of where your questioning me began...

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6862585#post6862585

 

As you can see the context was me challenging pininsho, nothing to do with you or purdey's exchange a 100 posts earlier.

 

 

My point proved yet again. You provide the odd example that goes against my general statement and for some reason you think that trumps it when it only ends up reinforcing the point I was making as highlighted once again by this statement.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

 

General points are not proved when exceptions are pointed out, they fall.

 

I'm making the argument that the fundamental inequalities of society are caused by religion and that it's the dissemination of those inequalities by various social and political means that is the problem.

Secularism deals with those fundamental issues regarding religion.

 

Quite clearly the cause of inequality is the economic structure of the society, and has very little to do with religion.

 

Once again please provide a link so I can make a judgement on your blind assertions.

 

Once again? It is you that was making the blind assertion.

 

Let me remind you:

 

>snipped section of the link below of Jensen 'dipping his toe into the water' of the debate

 

Your source a Palaeontologist (studies dinosaurs)

http://gspauldino.com/curriculum.html

 

My source a Professor of Sociology

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sociology/VDOS_People_GaryJensen.shtml

 

Actually I think the problem is that you're so engrossed in your own mindset that it blinds you to the issues that somebody else is highlighting that your mindset can't comprehend.

 

Nobody's forcing you to. As I said earlier I'm not really here to argue or debate I'm here to tell you where you're wrong.

 

PS. I notice you still haven't given me any examples of where you think 'dogmatic thinking' may be acceptable.

 

I can't think of an example where dogmatic thinking is acceptable. Why do you keep asking stupid questions and then complaining when rather than answer them I just ignore them?

[morTvika]

I can't think of an example where dogmatic thinking is acceptable. Why do you keep asking stupid questions and then complaining when rather than answer them I just ignore them?

 

except of course that dogmatically saying dogmatic thinking is not acceptable

[Wildcat]

except of course that dogmatically saying dogmatic thinking is not acceptable

 

That seems reasonable.

 

An aside: Wasn't dogmatic the dog in the Asterix stories?

[pininsho]

Arguing with anyone that is a Creationist is like shooting fish in a barrel. It shouldn't take an hours worth of youtube video to work out the argument being argued against is a nonsense.

 

I agree but it's good fun all the same.

[Wildcat]

I agree but it's good fun all the same.

 

I guess someone has to do it, it just seems a bit tired, especially on this forum when the topic crops up time and time again and rarely initiated by anyone actually advocating the argument.

 

Mentioning Pastafarianism and that proof of God's existence denies the faith at the core of religion is sufficient.

[pininsho]

I guess someone has to do it, it just seems a bit tired, especially on this forum when the topic crops up time and time again and rarely initiated by anyone actually advocating the argument.

 

Mentioning Pastafarianism and that proof of God's existence denies the faith at the core of religion is sufficient.

 

Then why get involved in the debate if you find it tiresome?

 

Your spat with six45ive has just descended into point scoring with the debate not progressing at all. Both of you just seem to be going through the who said what to who scenario that you find in married couples. You're not married are you? If so you need to get a room.

 

Personally I hardly have time to get involved in threads I am interested in never mind ones that I find tiresome.

[Wildcat]

Then why get involved in the debate if you find it tiresome?

 

Your spat with six45ive has just descended into point scoring with the debate not progressing at all. Both of you just seem to be going through the who said what to who scenario that you find in married couples. You're not married are you? If so you need to get a room.

 

Personally I hardly have time to get involved in threads I am interested in never mind ones that I find tiresome.

 

The thread wasn't about Creationism when I joined it.

 

Six45ive posted a long cut and paste of Dawkin's flawed version of the epicurean argument about 20 pages ago. I pointed out the flaw and had an interesting discussion with flamingjimmy about it. Six45ive has been attacking me ever since for being a creationist or something, it is hard to tell precisely what he is so upset about or why he thinks religion is the cause of all the world's problems. I have simply been defending myself from one wild accusation after another.

[six45ive]

Yes, quite clearly there is when just because I gave a definition of metaphysical in response to you asking me too, I am suddenly arguing Creationism

 

Not at all. It's simply that throughout this thread you've been making the argument for a metaphysical god. For some that may mean a creationist god, for others a deistic god or whatever.

 

I am an atheist why on earth would I do that

 

I was wondering the same which just goes to show what a mixed up mindset you have.

 

Your example is of having faith in something undecided, it is not an example of having faith in something you know to be true. If you know something is true then by definition you do not have faith in it, the nature of your relationship with the concept is knowing, not faith.

 

Agreed, but the concept is that I have faith in, as yet, an unknown outcome of an event that is about to happen in reality with a limited number of outcomes.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

As you can see from the link the term faith is a perfectly acceptable word to use in the example I provided.

 

You attributed the TAG argument to me again at the start of this post, now you are saying you haven't

 

No.

 

What has that got to do with me pointing out your irrational approach to this debate.

 

You talked about a 'fundamentalist approach to the truth' to which my response was 'the truth is the truth, if it's not what is it' which basically means that truth, by its very nature, is a fudamentalist position. Something's either true or it's not. There's no wriggle room there which I know you have a problem with. It's a fundamentalist, dogmatic position.

[six45ive]

Quite clearly the cause of inequality is the economic structure of the society. There is no need to provide proof what I have stated is obvious.

 

I'll answer you with your own quote from further down the thread.

Once again? It is you that was making the blind assertion.

 

Your research would be the one that uses as as a Religious indicator for selection and scoring:

 

So it is not a study about religion as a whole at all, its evidence is sourced from a particular type of religion. If you take its findings to be about religion in general then the study is guilty of selection bias and is worthless.

My answer is plain and simple. There is no need to expand on it further. There is clear Selection bias in its sampling.

 

Of course there is selection bias in the sampling. Why try and add into the equation the effects of non theistic religions like buddhism and jainism when their effects on the societies sampled are clearly not relevent? The dominant religions in these societies are pretty much the same but it highlights the greater equalities in those societies that have become more fundamentally secular.

The evidence is clear and indesputible irrespective of what you say.

Here's a series by the wonderful Jonathan Miller looking at the history of atheism and the indesputible problems that religion has caused in society throughout history.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3162184064060187674#docid=-5477612963296800262

The above link is the first episode. The rest of the series can be found via the links on the right.

 

What has Theism to do with anything?

 

:hihi:

 

Also less dogmatic religions like the Church of England and a large proportion of the Christian community.

 

Which have become moderated through growing secularism and an understanding of the world through science.

 

Best summed up in that it has nothing at all to do with what was being discussed?

 

Regarding your link to Francis of Assisi as an example of the goodness of religion in tackling inequalities I think this saying is entirely appropriate.

 

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

 

This post in response to Purdey?

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6852685&postcount=494

 

Here is the context of where your questioning me began...

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6862585#post6862585

 

As you can see the context was me challenging pininsho, nothing to do with you or purdey's exchange a 100 posts earlier.

 

Which is again irrelevent because my original post is the position that I'm arguing from.

 

General points are not proved when exceptions are pointed out, they fall.

 

Not at all. The fact that I'm using the word 'general' means that it's 'generally the case' as opposed to 'always the case' thereby meaning there is going to be the odd example that is apart from the 'generality ' of the situation. In other words the odd example that goes against the norm reinforces the fact that the norm is correct.

 

Quite clearly the cause of inequality is the economic structure of the society, and has very little to do with religion.

 

So the economic structure of a society has an effect on the attitudes of people regarding racism, homophobia, mysogeny how exactly?

Are you really saying that gay people feel just as free to be open about their sexuality in the bible belt in America as they are in Holland or Sweden etc?

 

 

Let me remind you:

 

Your source a Palaeontologist (studies dinosaurs)

http://gspauldino.com/curriculum.html

 

My source a Professor of Sociology

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sociology/VDOS_People_GaryJensen.shtml

 

And the weakness of the area of sociology is highlighted in the articles that Gary Jensen has produced, like this one http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/RELIGHOM.pdf, regarding religiosities' effect on society.

Articles that 'feature in' certain ideas of god and religion that are not only disputable because they rely on people telling the truth when they are asked, 'do you believe in god and if so what kind of god' and that takes little account of an understanding of the subversive effects that secularism and science in general have had on moderating certain religious attitudes over time. For this reason the more generalist view from a more fundamentalist standpoint is the approach required because it removes certain sociological aspects that tend to 'muddy the water'.

It's for this reason that this article http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf holds much more sway in academic circles looking at religiosity's effect on society than the very narrow focus that a sociologist like Jensen brings to the table.

On top of that the report that I linked to makes it clear this is not just one person's opinion. This is work based on clear evidence gathered partly from numerous existing papers/articles as can be seen at the end of the article but also has contributions from sociologists such as Peter Nardi. http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/nardi/nardi_vita.html.

 

I can't think of an example where dogmatic thinking is acceptable. Why do you keep asking stupid questions and then complaining when rather than answer them I just ignore them?

 

So you think that racism, sexism, homophobia etc are acceptable in some situations? I don't. I have a dogmatic attitude against all those things and a lot more besides as I'm sure you realise.

[pininsho]

And so the bickering continues.

I'm surprised the mods haven't locked this thread, it's getting pretty boring.