To clarify: this post is not particularly in response to anything that has been said so far, bar the OP, although I did read them. Mostly because everyone seems to agree with me so far.

Religion was invented for the purpose of control. It is a vessel used by smart neanderthalls to make people obey them by saying that if they don't they will eternally suffer and if they do they will be eternally rewarded. A tendancy to believe is inate in humans as a result of natural selection - if you question the priests you get impaled on a mammoth's tusk (whether or not it is attached to the mammoth depending on individual tribal cultures).

Traditions and cultures that stem from religion are largely in place to differentiate one groups followers from another. If a priest wants to declare war on another tribe he will need a religious reason to do so. It also helps to prevent your followers from joining another religion if that other religion's practices seem outlandish and satanic. Is it ok to eat cheese on a Tuesday if the moon is waneing? Since the average outsider would guess "yes", a religious leader could go a long way by making the answer "no".

Religion, therefore, is a method by which a social elite manipulate the majority. At least, it was origionally. I don't doubt that most modern priests genuinely believe. It can still, however, be used for control, and is being by the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Hamza (please don't pick me up on spelling).

With regard to terrorism, the majority of the cause will be political, rather than religious reasons. The individual soldiers (I use the term loosely) will, however, be religiously indoctrinated and motivated because that is the chosen method by the terrorist leaders. Getting rid of religion would remove a large ammount of the labour from terrorism, but by no means all of it. Look at the IRA. They were not religiously motivated but they still had bombers. Notably, not suicide bombers. Blow yourself up and it's straight to the bottom of the class for you. Their bombs didn't kill many people either - they knew how to be a nuiscence by blowing up buildings, but they phoned in threats first and got the human inhabitants out. They were good terrorists; sort of a warm up for when al-quaeda got invoved. The point is, the IRA were more efficient and annoying than al-quaeda, but they didn't kill as many people, and therefore terrorism is better without religion.

I'd love to say more on what improves when religion goes away but I'm short on time so let's move on to reasons for keeping it. The main reason cited in general is that religion is what makes people be good. It is a reason for charity. I say bullshit to this. I'm an atheist. I give to charity on occaision, have done charity work, and don't go around raping and pillaging.

Religion can also help support people through drug addiction rehabilitation, etc. So can councelling. I don't think this outweighs the control and terrorism charges. I have to end here. Sorry. More to come I hope.

what's the point debating over something that will never change, other than showing your oppinions. what does this accomplish

Whats the point in trying at life nouve? We all die in the end. Answer to both questions is to pass the time.

In response to the thread. Nope. Da morals cum frum religion.

Quote from Zed

Religion was invented for the purpose of control. It is a vessel used by smart neanderthalls

Cro Magnon actually, not neanderthals. Just had to nitpick this, lol.

to make people obey them by saying that if they don't they will eternally suffer and if they do they will be eternally rewarded. A tendancy to believe is inate in humans as a result of natural selection - if you question the priests you get impaled on a mammoth's tusk (whether or not it is attached to the mammoth depending on individual tribal cultures).

I don't think this is the case. I think it has more to do with a tendency to recognize patterns where none exist.

In the every day experience of a primitive being, if they encountered, say, a hut, they know that it was made by another person because in their experience, that's all that makes things. Religions start from these beings trying to apply the same logic to the trees, the mountains, etc. Similarly, primitive people see events like disease and earthquakes as expressions of anger of other beings. In their world, things do not happen unless a person or animal triggers it, so they assume the same for natural disasters.

One expression of this pattern seeking tendency is the development of superstitions. A scientist named B. F. Skinner performed a battery of experiments on pigeons that helped show how the pattern-seeking brain invents superstition. He placed pigeons in cages with feeding mechanisms. One group of pigeons received food every time they activated the mechanism, and the other group received food one some of the time, at random. What Skinner found was that some pigeons were detecting nonexistent correlation between their actions and the feeding machines. For example, some pigeons would preen the same feathers every time they tried getting food, because they did so right before getting food a few times, and their brains logged a pattern. Basically, they developed a superstition that preening that spot would allow them to get food.
Here's more info on the superstitious pigeons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

These kinds of correlation patterns may have been why some primitive religions involve rituals such as human sacrifice: they sacrifice a human they believe to be the reason for an earthquake, and no earthquakes happen for a while, so they think that their sacrifice prevented the earthquake. Eventually these beings are given stories and personalities, and become more like the gods of the Greeks and Romans. It's no coincidence that so many cultures have gods that look exactly like them or the animals around them.

Traditions and cultures that stem from religion are largely in place to differentiate one groups followers from another. If a priest wants to declare war on another tribe he will need a religious reason to do so. It also helps to prevent your followers from joining another religion if that other religion's practices seem outlandish and satanic. Is it ok to eat cheese on a Tuesday if the moon is waneing? Since the average outsider would guess "yes", a religious leader could go a long way by making the answer "no".

Religion, therefore, is a method by which a social elite manipulate the majority. At least, it was origionally. I don't doubt that most modern priests genuinely believe. It can still, however, be used for control, and is being by the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Hamza (please don't pick me up on spelling).

With regard to terrorism, the majority of the cause will be political, rather than religious reasons. The individual soldiers (I use the term loosely) will, however, be religiously indoctrinated and motivated because that is the chosen method by the terrorist leaders. Getting rid of religion would remove a large ammount of the labour from terrorism, but by no means all of it. Look at the IRA. They were not religiously motivated but they still had bombers. Notably, not suicide bombers. Blow yourself up and it's straight to the bottom of the class for you. Their bombs didn't kill many people either - they knew how to be a nuiscence by blowing up buildings, but they phoned in threats first and got the human inhabitants out. They were good terrorists; sort of a warm up for when al-quaeda got invoved. The point is, the IRA were more efficient and annoying than al-quaeda, but they didn't kill as many people, and therefore terrorism is better without religion.

As Zed says, you don't really find suicide bombers that aren't motivated by faith.

Quote from Ash

Cro Magnon actually, not neanderthals. Just had to nitpick this, lol.

:P

I don't think this is the case. I think it has more to do with a tendency to recognize patterns where none exist.

In the every day experience of a primitive being, if they encountered, say, a hut, they know that it was made by another person because in their experience, that's all that makes things. Religions start from these beings trying to apply the same logic to the trees, the mountains, etc. Similarly, primitive people see events like disease and earthquakes as expressions of anger of other beings. In their world, things do not happen unless a person or animal triggers it, so they assume the same for natural disasters.

I suspect I worded myself wrong/was incomplete. I agree, the idea of gods almost certainly origionated in this way, but building it into a full blown religion, and especially prophets, is, I suspect, a control issue.

These kinds of correlation patterns may have been why some primitive religions involve rituals such as human sacrifice: they sacrifice a human they believe to be the reason for an earthquake, and no earthquakes happen for a while, so they think that their sacrifice prevented the earthquake.

Certainly, but why do they think the earthquake wants a human sacrifice? My answer is; priests. The more intelligent and successful priests probably realized that september is a good time to publicly pray for rain and around four in the morning is when you should hold your ceremony to wake the sun up.

I agree with you on everything, I just word it differently and talk about it from a different perspective.

I'm more interested int he psychological origins of religious belief than the societal evolution of it.

Religions are just some set of opinions. And they're not the only opinions fought over. I'd say it would be the same.

Quote from Ash

Tell me this: if you came to the conclusion that god does not exist, would you go around murdering and raping people?

No, I wouldn't. As I have been ingrained with the morals of my society and culture. This has then been futher re-enforced by my religious beliefs. I will add that I have come to the conclusion that God, more then likely exists.

Can I say with certainty? No, but that's because absolute certainty is not a part of my philosophical vocabulary.

With near-certainty? Yes, I can, but I'm going to wait for you to answer the above question before I demonstrate this.

So if you are saying that the world is a better place without religion. You then don't know what losing the balance of religion would do to the world.

The middle-eastern suicide bombers are brainwashed with a supernatural claim, Steyner. How could one brainwash them without invoking the supernatural? They live a sexless existence, and as teenagers are very sexually frustrated. They are then told that they will be given 72 dark-eyed virgins in the afterlife by their lying leaders if they kill themselves in jihad. As desperate as they are, they don't hesitate. I'd be interested to hear you name one secular way to do this, secular from any claim of the supernatural.

Again you are blaming the gun for shooting someone. Ironically, from what I have seen in the world, there are Atheists who defend Atheism and its ideology with the same fervor as the militant Muslims. All they have done is replaced one with another. Sure they haven't gone to the same lengths as the terrorist and started killing.

As for a secular example. You only need to look at sporting teams. People have died because of fights revolving around sport.

That's not a result of the absence of a belief in a god, Steyner, that's a result of the belief that people who believe in a god are too stupid to be deserving of life. Try again.

So you are saying that Atheists can believe in anything what so ever?

Quote from Ash

One expression of this pattern seeking tendency is the development of superstitions. A scientist named B. F. Skinner performed a battery of experiments on pigeons that helped show how the pattern-seeking brain invents superstition. He placed pigeons in cages with feeding mechanisms. One group of pigeons received food every time they activated the mechanism, and the other group received food one some of the time, at random. What Skinner found was that some pigeons were detecting nonexistent correlation between their actions and the feeding machines. For example, some pigeons would preen the same feathers every time they tried getting food, because they did so right before getting food a few times, and their brains logged a pattern. Basically, they developed a superstition that preening that spot would allow them to get food.
Here's more info on the superstitious pigeons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

I ask you, since humans are hard wired to seek out patterns, is it not possible that he determined that there was a pattern, when there in fact wasn't? Also in that very article it states that his findings are disputed.

Quote from Steyene

No, I wouldn't. As I have been ingrained with the morals of my society and culture. This has then been futher re-enforced by my religious beliefs. I will add that I have come to the conclusion that God, more then likely exists.

Then you have just demonstrated that religion is NOT required for morality. If you did not have a religion, then other forces would prevent you from committing immoral acts.

Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.

So if you are saying that the world is a better place without religion. You then don't know what losing the balance of religion would do to the world.

You have yet to demonstrate this "balance". How is it that religion does this?

Again you are blaming the gun for shooting someone.

No, I'm blaming the person, not the gun. It just so happens that in this case the religion is the person and the person is the gun. I am saying that faith-based beliefs cause these things. You are the person saying that the suicide bomber is using the religion to kill, which makes no sense.

Ironically, from what I have seen in the world, there are Atheists who defend Atheism and its ideology with the same fervor as the militant Muslims. All they have done is replaced one with another. Sure they haven't gone to the same lengths as the terrorist and started killing.

EXACTLY THE ****ING POINT. There is nothing that can cause an atheist to do ANYTHING that is inherent in atheism. I'm not against "fervor". If you think you have the truth, then by all means promote it. There's no problem with that, so I don't see where the irony is here. The problem is that supernatural beliefs regarding the nature of the afterlife are the only way to get someone to kill with the promise of a reward in the afterlife.

Oh, and atheism is not an ideology. It has no dogma, no tenets, no rituals or political attachments. It is the absence of a particular kind of ideology.

As for a secular example. You only need to look at sporting teams. People have died because of fights revolving around sport.

Wait, you've heard of people becoming suicide bombers over sporting teams? JESUS CHRIST ON A STICK PROVIDE A LINK!

So you are saying that Atheists can believe in anything what so ever?

Except, by definition, theism, yes. But then, theists are equally as able to believe what they want. The only difference between the kinds of beliefs athesits and theists can hold is that theists are more likely to believe certain kinds of things, such as the afterlife or a creation myth.

I ask you, since humans are hard wired to seek out patterns, is it not possible that he determined that there was a pattern, when there in fact wasn't? Also in that very article it states that his findings are disputed.

Determined that there was a pattern where there wasn't? Well congratulations, Steyner, you just might be on to something: go gather up pigeons and repeat his experiments. After all, that's the beauty of science: Repeatability. Anyone can perform the experiments again. So if you want to invalidate his results, GO INVALIDATE THEM.

without the religions we have now we'd probably be eating people like some tribes in the amazon do and wondering if the world was a better place if the vengeful gods didnt exist so they couldnt kill our yaks or some shit

Quote from Ash

Then you have just demonstrated that religion is NOT required for morality. If you did not have a religion, then other forces would prevent you from committing immoral acts.

Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.

The reason your statement is slightly viable is that religion as so ingrained its morals into our laws and society as a whole that, all religion has to do morally is too stay around and keep us away from the slippery slope.

You have yet to demonstrate this "balance". How is it that religion does this?

It is subtle hence a pain to find anything.

No, I'm blaming the person, not the gun. It just so happens that in this case the religion is the person and the person is the gun. I am saying that faith-based beliefs cause these things. You are the person saying that the suicide bomber is using the religion to kill, which makes no sense.

Huur. Awesome I will go with your interpretation that using religion to kill makes no sense.

As for my analogy you have misinterpreted. Religion is a gun, it can be used as it is a useful tool. Religion itself has no inherit traits. Those are chosen and selected by the person using it.

EXACTLY THE ****ING POINT. There is nothing that can cause an atheist to do ANYTHING that is inherent in atheism. I'm not against "fervor". If you think you have the truth, then by all means promote it. There's no problem with that, so I don't see where the irony is here. The problem is that supernatural beliefs regarding the nature of the afterlife are the only way to get someone to kill with the promise of a reward in the afterlife.

And there is nothing inherit in any specific religion. No religion tells you to blow your self up and kill as many as you can.

Oh, and atheism is not an ideology. It has no dogma, no tenets, no rituals or political attachments. It is the absence of a particular kind of ideology.

I have to say that it is. It is slowly gaining a dogma. If you can honestly tell me that Atheism has no political attachments, then I think you are misled.

Wait, you've heard of people becoming suicide bombers over sporting teams? JESUS CHRIST ON A STICK PROVIDE A LINK!

No, you said to provide a secular example. You never said suicide bombers. Sports fans have murder fans of other teams, simply because of who they support.

Except, by definition, theism, yes. But then, theists are equally as able to believe what they want. The only difference between the kinds of beliefs athesits and theists can hold is that theists are more likely to believe certain kinds of things, such as the afterlife or a creation myth.

.
Just like that Atheist believe that the afterlife is non existent, that creation is a myth. Or in the non-existance of a god.

Determined that there was a pattern where there wasn't? Well congratulations, Steyner, you just might be on to something: go gather up pigeons and repeat his experiments. After all, that's the beauty of science: Repeatability. Anyone can perform the experiments again. So if you want to invalidate his results, GO INVALIDATE THEM.

Oh dear, see the wondrous thing about the human brain, is that once something is in the the subconscious can assist in one way or another. i.e. I might see a pattern, not because there is one, but rather because one has been found. Look at optical illusions, once you have the solution, you will always have an inkling towards it.

Quote from wikipedia

Subsequent research (for instance, by Staddon and Simmelhag in 1971) while finding similar behavior failed to find support for Skinner's "adventitious reinforcement" explanation for it. By looking at the timing of different behaviors within the interval, Staddon and Simmelhag were able to distinguish two classes of behavior: the terminal response, which occurred in anticipation of food, and interim responses, that occurred earlier in the interfood interval and were rarely contiguous with food.

Quote from Steyene

The reason your statement is slightly viable is that religion as so ingrained its morals into our laws and society as a whole that, all religion has to do morally is too stay around and keep us away from the slippery slope.

Religion is the root source of our morality then? It's ingrained in our society? Is that why we are dropping the arbitrary morals that religion foisted upon us like "gay sex is evil" and keeping the ones that have to do with harm to others like "rape is evil"?

The reason we have morals isn't religion. Empathy and natural selection are why we have morals. We don't kill everyone we see because doing so would have prevented us from surviving to reproduce when we were still primitive. Those groups that didn't have a genetic suppression to wanton murder didn't survive. We did have that suppression, so we survived.

It is subtle hence a pain to find anything.

"Religion provides a balance, and this I am certain of to a great enough degree that I will use it as my argument to counter your claim that religion isn't helpful, but I am unable to actually demonstrate this."

Huur. Awesome I will go with your interpretation that using religion to kill makes no sense.

As for my analogy you have misinterpreted. Religion is a gun, it can be used as it is a useful tool. Religion itself has no inherit traits. Those are chosen and selected by the person using it.

How the **** does one kill another person using a religion? Do they stab them with the trinity? Shoot them with original sin?

And there is nothing inherit in any specific religion. No religion tells you to blow your self up and kill as many as you can.

Actually, the perverted Muslim religion these guys practice does. It doesn't matter if the muslim religion practiced by the majority of people is sunshine and flowers (Which it's not), that doesn't change the fact that these guys are the tools of a belief that by performing horrible acts they will have their frustration released.

I have to say that it is. It is slowly gaining a dogma. If you can honestly tell me that Atheism has no political attachments, then I think you are misled.

So the absence of a belief in a god is gaining a dogma? Please enlighten me on what this dogma of an absence of a dogma is.

No, you said to provide a secular example. You never said suicide bombers. Sports fans have murder fans of other teams, simply because of who they support.

My exact word were "I'd be interested to hear you name one secular way to do this" right after talking about people who are "told that they will be given 72 dark-eyed virgins in the afterlife by their lying leaders if they kill themselves in jihad.

Just like that Atheist believe that the afterlife is non existent, that creation is a myth. Or in the non-existance of a god.

I have corrected you on this AGAIN and AGAIN throughout the history of these debates. Atheism is NOT the belief that no god exists, it is the ABSENCE of the belief that a god exists. I don't get how this is so hard for you to understand.

Oh dear, see the wondrous thing about the human brain, is that once something is in the the subconscious can assist in one way or another. i.e. I might see a pattern, not because there is one, but rather because one has been found. Look at optical illusions, once you have the solution, you will always have an inkling towards it.

You do realize that you are trying to support what you are trying to disprove, correct? You are saying that this experiment, which was an attempt to show that organisms detect patterns where none exist, is wrong because the scientist performing these experiments is detecting patterns where none exist.

Wow.

In anyway of view, Earth is screwed. Its part of human nature, bro.

Religion is the root source of our moral

ity then? It's ingrained in our society? Is that why we are dropping the arbitrary morals that religion foisted upon us like "gay sex is evil" and keeping the ones that have to do with harm to others like "rape is evil"? [/quote]

The reason we have morals isn't religio

n. Empathy and natural selection are why we have morals. We don't kill everyone we see because doing so would have prevented us from surviving to reproduce when we were still primitive. Those groups that didn't have a genetic suppression to wanton murder didn't survive. We did have that suppression, so we survived.
[/quote]
Bull shit. Thought experiment time.

Put a new born child into a room with no out side connections. They know nothing of social and are hence unaffected by it. They grow up thinking that their cell is all that there is. You introduce another person who has also been brought up by this, yet only give them slightly more food then they are used to. Do you really think that they will share? Or will they attack one an another like animals.

"Religion provides a balance, and this

I am certain of to a great enough degree that I will use it as my argument to counter your claim that religion isn't helpful, but I am unable to actually demonstrate this."
[/quote] Actually I am trying to find an example that is actually clear enough for you too grasp.

How the **** does one kill another pers

on using a religion? Do they stab them with the trinity? Shoot them with original sin?
[/quote]
For someone who is logical, you have certainly take the metaphor for face value. Religion is a TOOL. Instead of a gun, think of it as a chisel or hammer. Religion can be used to shape and for something into another. With a chisel you can turn a stick into a spear. If you kill someone with the spear, you are saying that you killed them with the chisel.

Actually, the perverted Muslim religion these guys practice does. It doesn't matter if the muslim religion practiced by the majority of people is sunshine and flowers (Which it's not), that doesn't change the fact that these guys are the tools of a belief that by performing horrible acts they will have their frustration released.

The bold there is your logical and non-emotional response. I do believe it is called Islam; not "Muslim Religion". They Islam that the serious jihadists follow isn't pure Islam. It has taken in some of the moral and dogmas of Mongol Blood worship. And then, it isn't the the followers who have determined this, it is the political players such as Bin Laden, who have realized that religion can be used as an effective tool, and hence have reworked it to suit their needs.

So the absence of a belief in a god is

gaining a dogma? Please enlighten me on what this dogma of an absence of a dogma is.

Dogma:a doctrine or code of beliefs acc

epted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma" .

You believe that your ideology is truth. You are and have preached it as truth. I was listening to the radio, and there was an interview with the leader of the Atheist "Church" of Australia. His opening words were "I am satan". He started preaching about how the a new add campaign being run by a Sydney church was propigating lies and should be removed. "It is all bullshit and lies", he said.

When then asked about the Atheist ad campaign that was rejected because of its content. He demanded to know why the truth was censored. A similar incident occured with the Dawkins campaign in the UK. He claimed that is belief was the truth, that religion was a lie. You claim that your belief is truth and that religion is a lie. It is a dogma.

My exact word were "I'd be interested t

o hear you name one secular way to do this" right after talking about people who are "told that they will be given 72 dark-eyed virgins in the afterlife by their lying leaders if they kill themselves in jihad.
[/quote]
I took this part of your statement

How could one brainwash them without inv

oking the supernatural?[/quote]
I have said, one can induce this incredible violence through something like a sporting team. People have killed because of insults to their teams. Or something slightly less, at the "Console Wars". Fanboys defending their faceless corporations.

I have corrected you on this AGAIN and

AGAIN throughout the history of these debates. Atheism is NOT the belief that no god exists, it is the ABSENCE of the belief that a god exists. I don't get how this is so hard for you to understand.
[/quote]
No an absence of a belief would be an agnostic. Someone who doesn't care either way. You say that there isn't a god. Which has the same about of scientfic evidence of their being a god. i.e. You can't claim it as fact and therefore is a belief.

You do realize that you are trying to s

upport what you are trying to disprove, correct? You are saying that this experiment, which was an attempt to show that organisms detect patterns where none exist, is wrong because the scientist performing these experiments is detecting patterns where none exist.
Wow.[/quote]

No, I am saying that you saying pidgeons had developed superstition was wrong. Anyway using your logic, and absence of a belief in a pattern means that the pattern doesn't exist.>_>

You brought the pidgeon point up as a cheap attempt to reduce religion to something that even birds could develop, despite there only been a couple of studies into in, and the results favor that the first experiment was false.

Steyene, I don't get how your thought experiment was supposed to prove that religion is the source of morals? Neither of the subjects were introduced to religion at all. Just food and neglect.

It also baffles me how you can say Atheism is a dogma, even after you have presented a definition of the word: "a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative." Atheism is the exact opposite of a dogma. The only thing that is common among all atheists is a lack of belief. A denial of the existence of a God. There are no doctrine or code of beliefs that hold them together, and they have no common goal (not even necessarily the eradication of religion). Saying atheism is a dogma is like saying not playing basketball is a hobby.

Also, you say religion is a tool, and thus somehow not bad for the world, as it is how people choose to utilize the tool, and not the tool itself, that affects the world (correct me if I am wrong here). However, if the tool, by being used, is generally causing more harm than good, wouldn't the world be a better place without it? Regardless of whether or not the tool could be used for good.