I have a degree in history in fact. Jews were killed along side the lame, mentally ill, homosexuals and others that were classified as "useless eaters" or "undesirables". Thousands more that weren't placed in concentration camps had their crotches irradiated until they were sterile.

Another biggie would be communism. Communism is a political ideology that is extremely hostile to religion yet despite being devoid of religion has racked up a bodycount approaching 150 million.

I could go on and rehash the history of antisemitism and the horrors of Fascist Germany but I think you're missing my point completely.

I'm not seeing how this was 'inspired by science'. Eugenics, yes - but science?

Dude...do you know what eugenics is?


eu·gen·ics noun pl but singular in constr \yü-ˈje-niks\
Definition of EUGENICS

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Look at it this way. If you take the divinity and sanctity out of human life we are no different than cattle and the same scientific principles could be applied in order to improve our herd. That is eugenics.

Thats not really my argument against OP. I just think the Quakers, from my viewpoint, hold moral and immoral views based on their religion that they say are based on their religion and doing what God wants.


My other argument was with the apologetics that goes with dismissing all of the harm religion does by saying it would of happen anyway with or without religion. If thats the case and religion is not the inspiration of harm for that reason, then it is not the inspiration of good for the same reason. (you take the good you take the bad, insert the facts of life theme song)

I don't think religious people were or are treating mentally challenged people with "divinity" and "sanctity" in mind. Same with religious people and homosexuals. And where does science say anything about killing Jews? Last I checked, Hitler is a devout catholic.

Cryptic? I'm trying to move in your circles.
You've been pointing to "acts" and attaching specific morality to specific acts. In your world, trees could be judged morally because we promise not to look beyond the act. If we're not allowed to judge the cause then trees fit in, they "saved a drowning man" which sure sounds like a good thing to do and by the way you judge quakers "they do x, they are moral/good" or some such. ( I have to confess I don't really understand that type of thinking).

Eugenics is not a science if it is advocating a course of action. Science is about understanding and learning about the world. Science doesn't say anything about what we should actually do - that's moral/political/social or whatever. You can't get any kind of instruction about 'what to do' from a scientific body of work. How you respond depends on what your goals are and those are politically or morally determined.
Maybe it is, though the bolded part is a pretty silly thing to say. Nothing in there about irradiating crotches though, nor about ignoring human rights in general - how exactly was that inspired by science? You sure it wasn't inspired by Nazis who co-opted eugenics to justify their atrocities? That would be another option wouldn't it?

EDIT: It's also interesting to see the definition you posted. If it was from dictionary.com I note that it is the only one (out of six) definitions which labels it a science. Perhaps it's not quite as clearcut as you wanted to imply?

Alright whatever. Christainty had nothing to do with the antisemitism in Germany or the Holocaust.

I think your responses to me would be greatly improved by not making assumptions about my views beyond what I actually say. I've not claimed that we're not allowed to judge the causes for violence. I've not said that we shouldn't look beyond the act to the motivations for the act. What I have said is that we don't see an increased proclivity to violence associated with membership in some religious sects. Since this is the main point that I've been trying to make, it is impressive that you've not once addressed it directly.

You instead want to have an argument with me about some other issue about religion--maybe whether religion taken in total is more bad than good, maybe whether there are other significant harms in liberal religious sects aside from increased violence, or maybe about the morality of religiously motivated actions. That's fine, but you haven't even waited for me to take a position before attacking me for holding views you think are wrong. I don't even know what views you think I have on these topics. I certainly haven't done more than mention in passing a view on these questions.

As I said before, there is no point in the history of Christianity where people obeyed all these commands in the Bible. As I said then, the Crusaders and the Inquisitors also didn't follow the commands laid out in the Bible and so were just as non-religious as modern day Christians who do (e). Anyway, this still doesn't answer my question: what are you condemning religious people for who don't accept or follow the commands in the Bible that you think are immoral? Because some people in the future might follow those commands?

This is correct, although it seems to be true of non-religious ideology (e.g. Soviet Communism) as well, so I'm not sure interesting it is. However, I suspect that religious fundamentalism does act as a brake on scientific instruction in the U.S., although I'm not sure how significant of one.

I have addressed it several times. Since it does nothing to support your claim I don't know why you keep raising it.

If that is an accurate statement of luckyme's view, then he has an interesting, though I think incorrect, view. However, it is a side-issue to my discussion. The heart of my claim is a descriptive one--that an accurate understanding of certain religions shows that those religions do not encourage their members to be more violent than they would otherwise be. The truth of this claim doesn't depend on whether or not you accept some form of deontological or consequentialist morality.

This is all fine, but ultimately irrelevant. Let's say that Luckyme thinks that in order to act morally you must have a rational basis for action. Let's say that he thinks that actions motivated by religion are never rational. Thus, actions motivated by religion are never moral (for most deontologists this wouldn't imply that they are therefore immoral). Fine. Notice how there is still a question about whether actions motivated by religion benefit or hurt society. That question has been the focus of this thread.

First, if you've somewhere given an argument that this claim is false, could you please either summarize it or direct me to the post?

Second, because you still seem confused, here is my thesis (my "claim") for the thread:
By "forms of religion" I mean something like religious sect, so examples would be Pentecostalism, Quakers, Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Conservative, Reformed, or Orthodox Jews. By "greater proclivity" I mean a disposition towards violent action that is greater, all else being equal, than the person would have if they were non-religious.

The reason I've been repeating this claim is because it is my main claim. Your statement that it doesn't support my claim is almost literally meaningless, since it is itself the claim I've been making in this thread. I've tried to be really clear about this, so I don't why you still seem confused.

You are welcome to disagree with my thesis, after all, you claimed that you've addressed it numerous times. But if so, please show me some evidence or reason for thinking it false.

I've had better luck with jelly and trees. Your comment that brought me into the thread was -
Then you switched to some stuff about Quakers doing good or some such because of religion ( apparently they're not men or something).

You think you have some argument because each religion isn't as violence-focused as christianity or islam. If they are dangerous because religion has you give up a realistic look at the situation then it is true that religion is a cause of violence, whether in some specific case the potential isn't used and whether there are other causes of violence.

It's simply a non-argument you have, even if you were correct about your assessment of some religion you think is benevolent. On that we're going to simply disagree because that's more fundamental to what we think of as of value in the human condition.

Having a lobotomy may be a cause of violence if it makes you susceptible to Palinitis. Yet, lobotomized people may be volunteers at nursing homes. That is not contradictory, as you seem to think and/or hope.

Is this some internet meme I don't know about? I'm not trying to be an dick, but I consistently have more trouble understanding your responses to me than anyone else on the forum. This thread is not the first time I've had to rely on translations from bunny to get what you are saying.

Huh? What does being male have to do with anything?

This simplest thing for me to say is that you came into this thread because you thought I was saying something I wasn't saying and then proceeded to ignore me every time I pointed this out. All of your arguments are either directed against claims I haven't made or are meant to support conclusions that are consistent with my main thesis.

For instance, here you argue that because religion makes you give up a realistic look at the situation that if you as a result commit a violent act then religion was a cause of that violent act. But how is this relevant to anything I've said? I've never denied that religious ideas can cause people to be violent.

Let's say you're right about religion and realism. The conclusion you draw is that religion is dangerous because it can then potentially be a cause of violence. So what? I've agreed with this conclusion from the beginning. My concern is, as I stated before, whether being religious causes a greater proclivity to violence. That is, I know that being religious can motivate violent actions. I'm interested in the comparative question: Are you more likely to be violent if you are religious than if you are not?

It seems to me that an examination of the history of at least Christianity doesn't show a consistent pattern of this being true. Some Christian sects or denominations seem more violence-prone than their peers while others seem less so. As a result, I am only willing to say that some religious sects or denominations will cause you to be more prone to violence. Your lack of engagement with what I've actually said is shown by the fact that I don't even know if you agree or disagree with this claim.

Of course there are some non-religious ideologies that are anti-scientific as well. So what?
The extent of religion concerning this matter is fairly vast if you look at the statistics in the USA. A huge percentage of all US citizens deny evolution and believe for example that the Story of Noah is literally true. There are huge controversies about whether or not evolution should be taught in US schools. Religion in the cause of this pathetic debate.

"Science nukes people but religion spooks people" ?

Because science hasn't developed the field of medicine or anything. And the field of medicine hasn't saved or enhanced anybody's life, obv.

Your position seems to be religion is dangerous because some people have justified killing with it or some people in future may do bad things so it should be gotten rid off despite the fact that it also causes people to do good things they may not otherwise do. However when it comes to the danger of science and the fact that people have used science to carry out killings on larger and larger scales we should Ignore that because science has done good too? Why treat one different to the other?
If you are going to ignore the positives of religion because of its negatives shouldn't you do the same with science?

We can't do medicine without science. We can be nice to each other without religion.

+1

And the "positives" of religion IE when it convinces someone to do something nice that they may not have otherwise done, those effects are largely anecdotal. (ie someone helps an old lady cross the street or gives money to a homeless person) Science's "positives" are often overarching and broad life savers across the board. (ie a cure to a disease or a new form of surgery)

Can we have social stability on a large scale without religion? Or at least something resembling religion?

Yes. Look at the most atheist countries obv. More people are scared of going to jail or the electric chair than they are of going to hell anyway.

I think so. Who knows really, of course.