BenW, I'm going to apologize in advance for tearing into your posts but you're arguing in circles and I have to take a crack at this.
1. I do, however, consider all of them to be deluded, as I stated before.
2. Religion, "organized" or not, is the best known and most used tool for controlling people.
3. I believe the point is that, in the historical context, more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not.
4. Most of these other causes are generally acknowledged being as nefarious, rather than institutionalized, and vehemently defended by a large portion of the population (*in reference to violent acts not linked to religion)
5. The delusion I was referring to is theism itself.
Or anything other than scientism, really.
6. As a person raised in a fundamentalist Christian household (Seventh Day Adventist), and one who considered himself a Christian until he reached the age of reason (5-6 years old), I feel qualified enough to state that this upbringing had a deleterious effect on my life and my psyche, and I am thankful that I was born with the intelligence to escape from it when I did
7. Faith is by definition, believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence, and/or evidence to the contrary
8. Until then, I'll go with the evidence at hand.
9. There are, however, plenty of people who really do believe God to be an invisible man in the sky keeping score.
Are you saying they are wrong to think so? Simply because their beliefs may not be as sophisticated as yours?
10. That is intellectual surrender...
1. You say people who are religious/superstitious/what ever else you want to call it are deluded. Congrats, you think people are deluded. I think you're deluded by your faith and arrogance that you are always right because you 'use' logic. Your logic is full of fallacies thus I think you're deluded.
Did we settle anything by that? Nope, didn't think so. All this is is ad hominem
2. Is this a fact or an opinion because you're presenting it as a fact. If you love facts so much I want your proof with empirical evidence, otherwise you're delusional.
3. Seeing as you rely and believe in facts and evidence so much, I'd like some for this, and let me make it crystal clear; I want numbers/graphs/pie charts/what ever that states specifically, and I quote "more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". I don't want numbers of people killed by the actions of people, I want hard proof that in fact more people have been killed my religion than not.
In the end it's the people who did the killing, not religion. You can't place blame for people's actions on inanimate things such as ideas. People get killed by cars, so cars are to blame, right? Or is it the people driving the cars...
4. To quote you (in yet another circular use of your arguement), because violence exists in religion, violence that is outside of religion and is "vehemently defended by a large portion of the population" is blameless for it's share?
5. And you are not delusional for believing in something so strongly as science? That in science/empirical evidence alone lie the answers? What if science can't prove the answers to everything? To believe in science you have to have faith that science is right. Sure, there is "evidence" but that evidence exists solely in the belief that the "evidence" is correct. Science can only be proven by empirical evidence, much like religious arguments can only be proven in faith. You can't argue faith with science or science against faith because they exist separate from each other.
6. This is an argument from authority, aka fallacie!!!
Congrats! you had a harmful upbringing, do you want a cookie? Just because it was pernicious (I can use big words too
) to you does not mean it is across the board. Logical fallacie.
7. So something is wrong if there is a lack of evidence? Just because it can't be proven means it holds no water? What if someone's faith follows along the lines of science/empirical evidence and they use faith to fill in the blanks? The stuff science can't prove. Science answer's how and faith/religion answers why. They both are creations of mankind and you're using one to disprove the other but they are on completely different playing fields. Just because you don't believe in the why doesn't discredit those who do.
You're playing refferee in a soccer match while handing out penalties by the rules of basketball.
Science and faith are seperate and can't be proven or disproven by the other, but they can work together if there is acceptance and acknowledgement of eachother.
8. Believe in evidence all you want but it's only true because you believe it to be and others believe it to be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove, so don't use it to discredit other's opinions.
9. Aren't you the one who's saying other people are wrong because they don't believe in the way you do? Please explain what your point in saying this is.
10. Intellectual surrender? Are you kidding me? Don't be niave. Because one feels beyond the five senses they are wrong? I'm not saying they are right but this is just name calling. You're assuming they give the same importance to "empirical evidence" as you do.
I hate it when I see people agressively push and use reason as an argument against faith; the same people saying that faith/religion is dangerous because it tells people how to think. Hypocritical. The bullshit excuse is anti-religion can do so because they have facts on their side, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, facts are only facts if one believes them to be so, it doesn't matter if the belief that "science and facts are indeed
true" is a widely held popular opinion, because in the end it is just that, nothing more than an opinion.
When will people realize that there indeed could be more to this world than our five senses can percieve? I'm not saying that there is or isn't, but it is a possibility. If it's beyond our five senses, no matter what we do we will never be able to prove or disprove it, but does that make it any less real (potenionally)? I mean the Tralfamadorians (anyone get this reference?) could see in four demensions and Billy couldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.