Official Religious Debate Thread

[Smegma]

A common definition is clearly the best one to use when speaking generally, however this isn't the case. I have said I agree that the study had shown that countries with more people devoted to religious rituals are more violent. I just dont think this is an adequate indirect indicator to jump to the conclusion the study does.

[excruciator]

On quantitative levels, no. But it does prove on a qualitative level that there is a relation between religion and violence.

personally, I don't care about the precise relation between religion and violence.

[Smegma]

No, but people who partake in religious rituals.

[excruciator]

No, but people who partake in religious rituals.

You realize that there is an relation between religious rituals and being in a religion

The article is only good at pointing that there is an relation. Much like an proportionality statement. Not the specific "equation" you are looking for

[Smegma]

You realize the people who claim to be in a religion do not necessarily represents it accurately.

[excruciator]

On quantitative levels, no. But it does prove on a qualitative level that there is a relation between religion and violence.

accuracy would be quantitative
yes/no is qualitative

this article is only good for qualitative examination


Don't know in what other way I can do this

[VijchtiDoodah]

Us "sciency types," eh? :D

You're absolutely right, Gamer, correlation does not mean that there is causation. In this case, I was playing it safe because I can't say if greater devotion causes higher church attendance. I very much assume it does, but that isn't important. Correlation still yields a dependable measurement under certain circumstances regardless of causation, albeit an indirect measurement. Causation does, however, make the data that much more trustworthy. Using your example, the ice cream probably does not cause drowning deaths, but I can still use the amount of ice cream sold to determine the number of drowning deaths for any month with a high degree of accuracy. In the same way, prayer and church attendance might not have anything to do with religious devotion (though I strongly suspect they do), but I can still use prayer and church attendance to measure the degree of religious devotion because they very likely correlate highly.

And, really, let's remember that the concept of church devotion and its correlates in this context are not part of the original data, they are things I brought up just so I could pick apart Smegma's argument for a moment. I never intended to end up guessing at what the writer of that article intended, that's my oversight. In reality, the data makes only a simple statement: the percent of the population that is atheist correlates positively with national peace (or the percent of the population that believes in gods correlates positively with national violence) and the amount a population prays or attends church correlates negatively with peace (or the amount to which a population refrains from prayer or church attendance correlates with peace). Interpret that as you will.

My interpretation, of course, is what we've really been arguing. That, and Smegma's very odd assertion that he doesn't know what religious devotion is, but it certainly isn't indicated by prayer and church attendance. :D

As for people inaccurately representing a religion, it doesn't matter: they're still religious. Even if faithfully following the tenets of religion would yield a nation at peace, that's not what actually happens. Instead, religion is corrupted and leads to violence. But it's still religion causing the violence.

[The Geologist]

Qualitative data doesn't rule out quantitative implications.

[Smegma]

My interpretation, of course, is what we've really been arguing. That, and Smegma's very odd assertion that he doesn't know what religious devotion is, but it certainly isn't indicated by prayer and church attendance.

As for people inaccurately representing a religion, it doesn't matter: they're still religious. Even if faithfully following the tenets of religion would yield a nation at peace, that's not what actually happens. Instead, religion is corrupted and leads to violence. But it's still religion causing the violence.

It is the people that are causing the violence. The article doesn't even lead to the conclusion that religion is causing the violence.

In reality, the data makes only a simple statement: the percent of the population that is atheist correlates positively with national peace (or the percent of the population that believes in gods correlates positively with national violence) and the amount a population prays or attends church correlates negatively with peace (or the amount to which a population refrains from prayer or church attendance correlates with peace). Interpret that as you will.

I never disagreed with this. Instead it was your interpretation.

yes/no is qualitative

this article is only good for qualitative examination

It doesn't matter. The point was that you are jumping to the conclusion that it was religion.

[excruciator]

It doesn't matter. The point was that you are jumping to the conclusion that it was religion.

You are saying as if it isn't

I'm going to repeat what I said:

It might be true that on the purest sense, religious practice is not religion. However, the correlation cannot be ignored. Therefore on a more macro scale, or when examined qualitatively, people who practice religion are religious. It is not 100%, but there is a relation. And that is the whole point of the article.

Stop trying to argue about accuracy, this article does not take into account the accuracy and the degree of violence in religious fellows. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Smegma]

Therefore on a more macro scale, or when examined qualitatively, people who practice religion are religious. It is not 100%, but there is a relation.

People who practice religion are indeed religion, but practicing religion is much more than attending a religious service. I'm once again arguing this relation between religious ritual attendance and a religious person isn't large enough to come to the conclusion you and Vjitch have.

Stop trying to argue about accuracy, this article does not take into account the accuracy and the degree of violence in religious fellows. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Im arguing with what you feel the article proves, not what the article shows.

[excruciator]

People who practice religion are indeed religion, but practicing religion is much more than attending a religious service.

Agreed, however for the purpose of the article, it did what exactly what it supposed to do.

I'm once again arguing this relation between religious ritual attendance and a religious person isn't large enough to come to the conclusion you and Vjitch have.

I would say that eventhough the relation is not perfect, it serve's its purpose. There is always exceptions.
It makes sense too; If there is no strong belief about something, would I go to great length to "enforce" and/or "follow" it?

[Smegma]

It makes sense too; If there is no strong belief about something, would I go to great length to "enforce" and/or "follow" it?

Atheists don't believe in anything?

Agreed, however for the purpose of the article, it did what exactly what it supposed to do.

I have repeatedly said I agreed that the article shows a relation between violent countries and people who attend religious services.

I would say that even though the relation is not perfect, it serve's its purpose. There is always exceptions.

Its much far from perfect.

[excruciator]

Science is about challenging it and improving on it.
Religion is about suppressing whoever challenging it.

[Smegma]

Religion is about suppressing whoever challenging it.

I thought religion was about going to services?

Its this narrow sighted view which made you jump to the same conclusion that I am arguing against. For whatever reason, all you care to "know" about religion is so that it will fit into a view that allows you to justifiably condemn it. In this way, you fit your definition of Religion to a T.

Its quite curious that you assume the actions of some men define an abstract, just like the way you apply one concrete action to the quality of religiousness.

Science is about challenging it and improving on it.

Actually, science doesn't really improve it, though it is used as an aid to. Science is more about searching for apparent truths through empiricism.



Above you never mentioned what beliefs were worth defending, merely that people who have strong beliefs may defend it to whatever cause.

[excruciator]

all you care to "know" about religion is so that it will fit into a view that allows you to justifiably condemn it.

You make me sound like a monster.

I had plenty of religious influences as I lived in the heart of Catholicism for 5 years. but I'd say I'm quite neutral.

Above you never mentioned what beliefs were worth defending, merely that people who have strong beliefs may defend it to whatever cause.

Belief worth defending might not be defended. While worthless belief will be defended if people are strong enough.

I think defense depends more on the people defending it as opposed to the belief itself. It is true that when a belief is worth defending people might defend it more, but I think people has the final say whether to defend or not.

[Smegma]

You make me sound like a monster.

I had plenty of religious influences as I lived in the heart of Catholicism for 5 years. I'd say I'm quite neutral.

Yet your definition of religion shows otherwise.

Belief worth defending might not be defended. While worthless belief will be defended if people are strong enough.

Why?

[excruciator]

I think people has the final say whether to defend or not.

[The Geologist]

So...then it's not religion?

[poodleinacan]

Religion was made to control.
If you listen in your history classes you remember that.
Secondly, AM GOD!...............My god...if you know what I mean...(I have faith in MYSELF).

The bible is for dummies.......I have the proof.....(kind of, if you play with words...)


All the religions are wrong. (Boudhism isn't a a religion.....Boudhism ROCKS!)


I also say that there is other life forms in the Univers.......some mre advance then us other less and other about the same.....or just the equivalent of the dinosaures.