The results of "What makes you believe in God? [Serious]" in askreddit (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
23 ups - 15 downs = 8 votes
107 comments submitted at 11:50:19 on May 16, 2014 by angrypotato1
The results of "What makes you believe in God? [Serious]" in askreddit (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
23 ups - 15 downs = 8 votes
107 comments submitted at 11:50:19 on May 16, 2014 by angrypotato1
> If something someone believes makes them feel better and isn't hurting them or anyone else, who cares?
Google Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
Beliefs don't float in nothing, they're tied to society and culture. They can increase or decrease, directly or indirectly, acceptance of unethical or anti-social behavior.
Believing in god, or not believing in evolution and keeping it to yourself is the same as child molestation?
They were terrible for that, but 1.) child molestation isn't unique to religion and 2.) he specifically said believing in things that don't hurt themselves or anyone else. Which child molestation definitely does.
That is completely irrelevant to this argument.
> Believing in god, or not believing in evolution and keeping it to yourself is the same as child molestation?
Not exactly, no. I was pointing out how that argument was wrong because it ignored how far the consequences of beliefs go.
But if you want to argue, too, ok.
Rejection of the science of evolution, like rejection of any science, has the consequence of ending up with a society that is incapable of dealing with technical problems as they appear or reappear; it leads to bad thinking and bad thinking leads to bad planning and if the plans are applied on a large scale, the consequences are very bad.
On an individual scale of someone who is trying to be a scientist, rejection of the theory evolution can lead to a poor science education and reduce career prospects.
On a social scale, mass rejection of the theory of evolution can lead diminished education, as both low-level teachers, parents, family and children reject it (peer pressure consolidating everything), which is basically regress. This rejection of the theory of evolution also comes with a poor way of thinking - that of accepting truth only from authoritative sources which reinforce your worldview, instead of listening to the people with the evidence. This is both anti-intellectual and against skepticism, which means that the society is growing to be ignorant and foolish (I'd love to see anyone here argue that as good thing).
>Not exactly, no. I was pointing out how that argument was wrong because it ignored how far the consequences of beliefs go.
Anything taken too far can be bad.
Is cake bad? Is eating 40 cakes a day bad?
>Rejection of the science of evolution, like rejection of any science, has the consequence of ending up with a society that is incapable of dealing with technical problems as they appear or reappear; it leads to bad thinking and bad thinking leads to bad planning and if the plans are applied on a large scale, the consequences are very bad.
Good thing we have different people for each thing then. If scientists reject science that's awful, I however don't much care if artists do. Not everyone in a society has to be a scientist. And again, I think pushing science out of places like education because religion is harmful. We just aren't discussing that.
>On an individual scale of someone who is trying to be a scientist, rejection of the theory evolution can lead to a poor science education and reduce career prospects.
I agree and said that elsewhere. If he wants to be a world class cellist does it matter?
>This is both anti-intellectual and against skepticism, which means that the society is growing to be ignorant and foolish (I'd love to see anyone here argue that as good thing)
Mass anti-intellectualism is bad.
This is why we are all saying "having a belief and keeping it to yourself harms no one".
And that invalidates my point how? Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with believing in God or your average believer. What those people did and what the church did was terrible but it does not have anything to do with an idea that is in a person's head that comforts them.
In fact, my including isn't hurting them or anyone else, pretty much said that didn't it?
> And that invalidates my point how?
I just pointed out how apparently harmless beliefs actually do cause harm.
> Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with believing in God or your average believer.
Well, except for all the political, financial and social support given by believers.
You didn't point out anything. You provided an example where some people in places of power systematically abused it. This isn't specific to religion and I don't see how perpetuating the belief in a god is the root of the abuse.
But those are again two separate things: are you trying to say that someone can't believe in God without supporting the Catholic Church and therefore child-abusing priests? Inherently by believing in God, people automatically give money and support to Catholicism and therefore support pedophiles?
>I just pointed out how apparently harmless beliefs actually do cause harm.
No. You pointed out how harmful actions cause harm. No one is debating that point.
Stop. You're making yourself look fedoric.