Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The guilty "party" are what? People. Not Atheism, not Parenthood, not Democracy, not the University. The people who did the deed go to jail.
Similarly when a Christian, Muslim, HIndu, or of any riligion, shoot people, lynch them, steal, molest thier student, Religion never goes to jail. Religion never told them to go do those things. They chose to act that way, instead of several other ways they could have chosen to do. Religion does neither good nor bad. People do.
However religion can be used as a tool for doing good or bad. Who uses the tool? People do. People set up clothes collection, food pantries, etc. Churches encourage people to march for justice, and People do. Churches carry people who have no other means of transportation, to voting booths to vote. People drive that bus, often volunteers.
The same religion can be weaponized to divide people, sow dissension and fear of the other. Who does that? People.
Just like Science. When napalm was deployed to kill Vietnamese civilians in a most cruel way, those who directed the operation used Science as a tool. Is Science the evil doer? No, the people who dreamed up the operation are.
See how it works?
so that is an opinion piece from Salon which is "an American politically progressive/liberal news and opinion website created in 1995. Salon offers "provocative (if predictably liberal) political commentary and lots of sex", according to the senior contributing writer for the American Journalism Review. It is a tabloid, which Salon editor in chief openly admits stating, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid." oh, fun fact: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history.
So in the tabloid article "quoted" in the post above, i don't see any evidence based research, i don't see any peer reviewed journal articles, and i don't see references to any other work by credible scientists, researchers, scholars, or specialists in the field. The links in the article go to more of her own articles (more opinion pieces) and to an atheist blog.
It is an opinion piece published in a tabloid. Which links to other opinion pieces. Sort of like on this CD forum. anyone can say anything.
And you post is an ad hominem, that is, you are attacking the article instead of addressing whether the points are valid or not.
Like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
1. "Religion promotes tribalism"
True of any group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
2. "Religion anchors believers to the iron age"
Certainly a western fundamentalist problem, but many religious believers are capable of ignoring the more fundamentalist positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
3. "Religion diverts generous impulse and good intentions" to the support of an organization
True, but also true for charities. Organizational abilities cost money. That is why when I create a web site for a charity, I send them an itemized bill so they can see what they would have paid (it usually stops them asking for extra free work).
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
4. "Religion teachers helplessness"
Some do, but again many people can ignore that side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
5. "Religion seeks power"
This to me is the main problem when it happens, especially at a country level or when used as a cult.
Forbes also notes, "Interestingly, although religion and spirituality correlate to an external locus of control (God as a higher power in control of our destiny), most research concludes that those who are religious have a strong internal sense of control. Dr. Harold Koenig of Duke University contends that as people pray, and ask God for guidance, they feel a sense of control over their own situation, helping them cope with depression and anxiety."
This has been absolutely true for me through the worst periods of my life. My prayer has always been to ask for strength to deal with whatever stuff happening then, and not to hate, because that is a descent into hell. Looking back at my life I cannot but feel grateful.
religion provides a structure which people benefit from. Attending services in a community is yes a group of people, but religion provides that structure. Same for classes. People teach the classes, but it is the structure of religion which provides a building and a classroom for teachers and students to gather together. One person can not build a community center, but a group of people together in the structure of religion can build a community center or a school from which many people benefit. One person, or even a few people, do not have the wherewithal to provide food for 200 families per week in their town, but religion provides the structure, the vehicles, the office, the warehouse, the accounting, for people to gather together to shop, sort, bag, box, and deliver the food anonymously in disguise to preserve the dignity of the recipients. People can donate funds for this but religion provides the structure to carry out feeding families in a reliable organized fashion week to week. Same for providing a structure to organize visits to people in the hospital, or provide assistance with chores at home if someone has had a baby, or do chores for the elderly or someone recuperating from injury or illness. Without a structure a person can't organize and coordinate and carry that out on their own.
could a person do that on their own? no. not anymore than a person could build a car by themself or get a university degree by reading books on their own. that's what the structure of a car factory or a university or a religion provides, even though it is people within those doing the individual tasks.
above is also a non sequitir. it's not binary. it's not an either or.
Thank you for your wonderful and complete response Tzaph.
I refuse to spend any more effort trying to respond to questions that display willful ignorance, because the intention behind these posts is never about honest interchange, it is needling and time pass and effort to derail the thread. It is so transparent and it feels dirty to be engaged in it. They already know the answers, and if they are truly that ignorant, may God help them.
Maybe Golden will pray for them. I admire your knowledge and patience. This is not for me.
so that is an opinion piece from Salon which is "an American politically progressive/liberal news and opinion website created in 1995. Salon offers "provocative (if predictably liberal) political commentary and lots of sex", according to the senior contributing writer for the American Journalism Review. It is a tabloid, which Salon editor in chief openly admits stating, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid." oh, fun fact: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history.
So in the tabloid article "quoted" in the post above, i don't see any evidence based research, i don't see any peer reviewed journal articles, and i don't see references to any other work by credible scientists, researchers, scholars, or specialists in the field. The links in the article go to more of her own articles (more opinion pieces) and to an atheist blog.
It is an opinion piece published in a tabloid. Which links to other opinion pieces. Sort of like on this CD forum. anyone can say anything.
I admire your patience and scholarship. Casting pearls …
if a mindset favors tabloids over evidence based research,
then it demonstrates an inability to evaluate the credibility of an information source.
This is how false news and dangerous lies spread, by people who have no discrimination or lack the ability to judge their source. Or even more dangerous, know it and spreads it regardless. That requires an extraordinary lack of shame.
if a mindset favors tabloids over evidence based research,
then it demonstrates an inability to evaluate the credibility of an information source.
Do we have a process that can help us decide who is who and doing what? What type of things do we look for?
How can we see if its "me" using tabloids to justify myself or it is "you" using them? Can we tell if its both or neither of us? What would it look like when two people are promoting/debating opposite beliefs based on tabloids? or both research? or one and one?
We can use atheism and theist for obvious reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
