What is worse, racism or rape?

[Crazy Eddie]

Nobody has said otherwise.

Which means there isn't actually anything unique about religion among those other institutions.

If there was nothing unique about religion...

... as far as its ability to inspire bigotry and violence, there isn't.

So what if it isn't the only cause of something? It would still be a major contributor and cause.

Yes it would... IF the effect could only happen in the presence of religious belief, which is where the second factor comes in.

In order to establish that Condition A is a causal factor for Condition B, you need to be able to establish that Condition A is necessary and/or sufficient for the occurrence of Condition B. That is to say, "Does A always cause B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not sufficient. "Can ONLY A cause Condition B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not necessary.

So the extent to which A (religion) is related to B (irrational beliefs, bigotry, hatred, violence) can be examined rationally, in which case we discover that it does not actually contribute to this in any consistent fashion and that OTHER factors are actually far more relevant.

Let's use your own metaphor:

It would still be poison.

I want to prove that something is poisonous. In the first trial, I test it on 100 test subjects. 65 of them show no effects, 30 of them became lightheaded for a few minutes, 3 of them become nauseous for an hour but are otherwise fine, and 2 of them die.

Is it still poison? Looking at the data and running additional trials, I find that it only sickens people when consumed in combination with alcohol (the 30 who became lightheaded), and it mostly only sickens people in combination with cocaine (the 3 who became nauseous) and can be lethal in very high doses (the people who misread the instructions and drank 2 liters instead of 200ml like they were supposed to).

From this, you have established that this substance you are testing is
1) Not necessary -- BY ITSELF -- for the negative effects to occur and
2) Not sufficient -- BY ITSELF -- for the negative effects to occur.
That is to say, it only has these effects in combination with other things, or in massively high concentrations. But to say "This substance is poison" would not be accurate and would actually be highly irrational.

Even oxygen can kill you under the right conditions. The question for YOU is to what extent religion is a CAUSAL factor of those behaviors in the first place, rather than an influence on how those behaviors manifest. You've shown nothing of the former.

 

[TSwizzle]

Religion plays a significant part in how religious people behave. It's really that simple.

We've already established that. We're just trying to nail down how big that part actually is.

"We" are doing no such thing. YOU on the other hand are going round in ever decreasing circles trying to bullshit your way out of the corner you have backed yourself into.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

The idea that people can be divided into 'good' or 'bad' is poor reasoning, and is one of the ideas that religion (particularly Abrahamic religion) is responsible for propagating and promoting.

100% agreed. Referencing the Milgram Experiment again, it's entirely possible to get a perfectly "good" person to cause harm to another by the simple introduction of an authority figure. Stanley Milgram wasn't a priest and didn't invoke religion at all in his experiments, he simply placed the test subjects in a subordinate position where obedience was expected of them. ANY social institution with an authoritative hierarchy will be able to override the moral code of its lower ranked members. The phrase "I was only following orders" is all it really takes; doesn't matter if those orders come from a priest, a boss, a professor or a general.

Religion provides a handy mechanism for excusing or glossing over bad behaviour. And regularly getting away with bad behaviour - or worse still, being lauded for it - inevitably leads to worse and worse behaviours. Which is, of course, the point that Weinberg was trying to make.

Possibly true, but that still under-sells the human element to this. Why would people of conscience choose to laud evil behavior rather than condemn it? "God commands it!" isn't a good enough reason, mainly because God never actually talks and can't really command anything. But "Imam Nasrudin commands it!" more than suffices for someone who is accustomed to the idea that Imam Nasrudin is an authority figure and you really ought to do what he says. Nasrudin can claim to be getting his orders from God, sure, but nobody would actually listen to him unless he was ALSO established as an authority in some religious order whose members were indoctrinated to obey its commands.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We've already established that. We're just trying to nail down how big that part actually is.

"We" are doing no such thing. YOU on the other hand are going round in ever decreasing circles trying to bullshit your way out of the corner you have backed yourself into.

It's not a "corner" at all. It's a doorway labeled "sound reasoning" and me wasting my time inviting JP and Skep to step inside while someone called TSwizzle gets all butthurt about the original premise not making sense.

In any case, what exactly is "circular" about that argument? 130,000 Muslims in Ohio DID NOT run someone over with their car. They continue to not run people over with their cars every day, despite the fact that they are Muslims. So if Islam isn't enough to cause Muslims to commit vehicular homicide, what IS?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Religion plays a significant part in how religious people behave. It's really that simple.

We've already established that.

Have we now? Horray for progress. Does this mean we will see no more ridiculous claims that religion never builds bigotry and misogyny and is only an excuse for it? No more silly arguments that because religion isn't the only problem, it isnt a problem?

How very refreshing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Most Muslims don't run kaffir down with their cars, so when a Muslim does (and explicitly states why), religion isn't the problem"

"Most racists don't lynch black people, so when a racist does, racism isn't the problem"

This is your logic? Have fun with that.

And nevermind that most Jehovas Witnesses do refuse blood transfusions. Most Jews do mutilate their son's penises without their consent. Most followers of Jim Jones' cult did kill themselves. Most followers of particular sects of Islam (a religion within a religion) do want to see kaffir dead.

Most Christians did support discrimination against homosexuals until secularism tamed the religion. Opposition to Stem cell research, abortion, and a hundred other roadblocks to progress and reason issues are obviously shaped by religion... And sometimes not by much else.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most atheists don't kill religionists, so when an atheist does it, atheism isn't the problem.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In order to establish that Condition A is a causal factor for Condition B, you need to be able to establish that Condition A is necessary and/or sufficient for the occurrence of Condition B. That is to say, "Does A always cause B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not sufficient. "Can ONLY A cause Condition B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not necessary.

That is overly simplified. Many things happen due to a range of factors acting together, and most people in every day speech will say they are causes.

I traveled from Toronto to Montreal today by plane. Was the plane sufficient to get me to Montreal? No. Was it necessary to get me to Montreal? No. But a plane was a big causal factor in getting me to Montreal.

Was my wish to go to Montreal necessary to get me to Montreal? No. I could have been transported there in my sleep. Was my wish to go to Montreal sufficient to get me to Montreal? No. I needed a plane. But my wish to get to Montreal, and all of the actions that wish caused me to take, are a major causal factor in my getting here.

If you are restricting causation to a strict sense of necessary and/or sufficient, then you are dismissing the vast majority of what most people think of when they think of causes. To the point that we could have little if any at all discussion of sociology or psychology in terms of one factor shaping or causing another.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

But remember when the Rotherham scandal broke, the SJ Wanker media had a far, far, more important issue to bring to our attention. SPIDER WOMAN'S BUTT!!!!!!!

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We've already established that.

Have we now? Horray for progress. Does this mean we will see no more ridiculous claims that religion never builds bigotry and misogyny and is only an excuse for it?

There's your binary thinking again. Nobody's claiming religion doesn't play a role in bigotry and misogyny. But religion isn't CAUSE either of those things; the role it plays isn't a "building" one at all. This is significant, because it is the fatal flaw in your ORIGINAL premise, implying that bigotry and misogyny could be reduced by eliminating religion. Since religion doesn't actually cause either of those things, eliminating religion wouldn't have that effect.

No more silly arguments that because religion isn't the only problem, it isnt a problem?

Religion is problematic for many, MANY reasons. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Most Muslims don't run kaffir down with their cars, so when a Muslim does (and explicitly states why), religion isn't the problem"

"Most racists don't lynch black people, so when a racist does, racism isn't the problem"

This is your logic? Have fun with that.

If you were to claim that racism is the cause of homicide and therefore eliminating racism would reduce the rate of homicides in this country, you would be wrong. Race-based homicide being relatively rare, eliminating racism altogether would do little or nothing to affect the homicide rate.

Racism is problematic for many, MANY reasons. "Strongly contributes to the U.S. homicide rate" isn't one of them (unless, of course, you're going to make the case that most of the officer-involved shootings really DO have an element of racism, in which case you've got a pretty big fight on your hands as is).

And nevermind that most Jehovas Witnesses do refuse blood transfusions. Most Jews do mutilate their son's penises without their consent. Most followers of Jim Jones' cult did kill themselves. Most followers of particular sects of Islam (a religion within a religion) do want to see kaffir dead.

This is the third time you have cited the Jim Jones suicide, and I'm beginning to wonder if you're aware that the Jonestown Massacre -- and yes, it really was that -- involved hundreds of cult members being forced to drink the coolaid AT GUNPOINT, even after it became obvious that the drink was poisonous. The lesson there isn't the devotion of the cultists, but the devotion of the GUNMEN. Why would you deliberately force people to do something you know is harmful to them just because you've been ordered to?

And there, too, is your answer. As Milgram famously demonstrated and as history continues to show, people will obey authority figures uncritically just as long as obedience seems more convenient than independence. As in your above examples: refusing transfusions shows solidarity with other Jehovas witnesses because accepting one means being booted out of the order (without that implicit threat of ostracism, nobody would give a shit). Circumcising babies for Jews is done because EVERYONE ELSE got it done and the rest of your family is going to think you're a schmuck for bucking tradition for no reason, and anyway it's supposed to be harmless for the baby and he won't remember anyway. Even in Islam, hating on Kaffirs is alot more of a social thing than a religious thing. Nearly every American I have ever met who spent any time in Iran has told me that most Iranians will chant "death to America" right the hell next to their American friends without even noticing the irony.

If there's a problematic element to religion, it's the nature of top-down authoritarian social hierarchies and their ability to twist the will of a large group of people to the agenda of a handful of skillful manipulators. It's one of the reasons I believe that organized religion is a magnet for psychopaths looking for self-gratification and/or a means to express their messiah complex.

If you want to talk about the problem of authoritarianism in organized religion, that's something worth addressing (and the mechanisms for eliminating/containing that sort of structure are well known and well studied in western history). But religion AS AN INSTITUTION promoting bigotry and hatred? Bullshit. You might as well blame capitalism for income inequality or liberalism for the growing prevalence of homosexuality. It's sloppy thinking to attempt to link those things when no logical chain of causality really exists.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In order to establish that Condition A is a causal factor for Condition B, you need to be able to establish that Condition A is necessary and/or sufficient for the occurrence of Condition B. That is to say, "Does A always cause B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not sufficient. "Can ONLY A cause Condition B?" If the answer is "no" then A is not necessary.

That is overly simplified. Many things happen due to a range of factors acting together, and most people in every day speech will say they are causes.

I traveled from Toronto to Montreal today by plane. Was the plane sufficient to get me to Montreal? No. Was it necessary to get me to Montreal? No. But a plane was a big causal factor in getting me to Montreal.

Logic fail.

This applies to a range of explanations, not to individual cases. In this case, "How does one get from Toronto to Montreal?"

If you're flying DIRECT from Toronto to Montreal, then a plane is indeed sufficient (no other form of transportation is needed to travel from the city limits of one place to the city limits of the other). But if the plane is not the only way to make that trip, the plane is not NECESSARY for the trip.

Which means that if you tell me that you traveled from Toronto to Montreal, I can deduce that you MIGHT have taken an airplane, but not necessarily (that's literally what the phrase "not necessarily" means).

Take the reverse case: Suppose Montreal is surrounded by an anti-zombie wall and is inaccessible by car. Now, the the plane IS neccessary to make that trip, so if you tell me you traveled from Toronto to Montreal, I can deduce that you MUST have taken an airplane, necessarily.

If Montreal doesn't have an airport and you have to land at an auxiliary airfield twenty miles away, then I know that the airplane is not SUFFICIENT for the trip, so if you tell me you traveled there, I can deduce that you had to have taken an airplane AND SOME OTHER MEANS AS WELL to reach Montreal (taxi, bus, uber, train, etc).

That's how logic works. You evaluate true/false statements to arrive at related true/false statements.

If you are restricting causation to a strict sense of necessary and/or sufficient, then you are dismissing the vast majority of what most people think of when they think of causes.

Not at all. I know that riding in airplanes doesn't NECESSARILY result in you arriving at Montreal. I know this for the simple fact that not all airplanes fly to Montreal.
On the other hand, I know that riding in airplanes will result in you having to go through airport security. I know this for the simple fact that all airports have security procedures in place to screen passengers and luggage.

So while I cannot conclusively say that you boarding an airplane means you went to Montreal, I DO know that you had to go through security to get on the plane.

It is the same in this case: since we can plainly see that not all religious believers endorse bigotry, misogyny or violence, then the connection between "religion" and "bigotry" is about as meaningful as the connection between "airplanes" and "Montreal." This is especially significant when one realizes that because of this lack of connection, not only would eliminating airplanes NOT prevent people from traveling to Montreal, it would also eliminate flights to other destinations as well.

If you want to stop people from traveling to Montreal, you need to figure out why the hell anyone would want to go to Montreal in the first place. Eliminating one type of vehicle for that trip isn't going to accomplish that.

Translation, in case you are the type that struggles with analogies:
If you want to stop people from adopting attitudes of bigotry, misogyny, racism and hatred, you need to figure out why people adopt these beliefs in the first place. Eliminating one type of vehicle for those beliefs isn't going to accomplish that.

 

[TSwizzle]

"We" are doing no such thing. YOU on the other hand are going round in ever decreasing circles trying to bullshit your way out of the corner you have backed yourself into.

It's not a "corner" at all. It's a doorway labeled "sound reasoning" and me wasting my time inviting JP and Skep to step inside while someone called TSwizzle gets all butthurt about the original premise not making sense.

"Butthurt" ? FFS, are you twelve years old ? Your time is your own to waste. Have at it.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not a "corner" at all. It's a doorway labeled "sound reasoning" and me wasting my time inviting JP and Skep to step inside while someone called TSwizzle gets all butthurt about the original premise not making sense.

"Butthurt" ? FFS, are you twelve years old ? Your time is your own to waste. Have at it.

You do realize your response is a perfect example of butthurt.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Butthurt" ? FFS, are you twelve years old ? Your time is your own to waste. Have at it.

Let's be fair TSwizzle. Their attitudes and logic make me think they may actually be 13.

 

[laughing dog]

"Butthurt" ? FFS, are you twelve years old ? Your time is your own to waste. Have at it.

Let's be fair TSwizzle. Their attitudes and logic make me think they may actually be 13.

That one broke every irony meter in every universe.

 

[Enigma]

If you are restricting causation to a strict sense of necessary and/or sufficient, then you are dismissing the vast majority of what most people think of when they think of causes.

Not at all. I know that riding in airplanes doesn't NECESSARILY result in you arriving at Montreal. I know this for the simple fact that not all airplanes fly to Montreal.
On the other hand, I know that riding in airplanes will result in you having to go through airport security. I know this for the simple fact that all airports have security procedures in place to screen passengers and luggage.

So while I cannot conclusively say that you boarding an airplane means you went to Montreal, I DO know that you had to go through security to get on the plane.

It is the same in this case: since we can plainly see that not all religious believers endorse bigotry, misogyny or violence, then the connection between "religion" and "bigotry" is about as meaningful as the connection between "airplanes" and "Montreal." This is especially significant when one realizes that because of this lack of connection, not only would eliminating airplanes NOT prevent people from traveling to Montreal, it would also eliminate flights to other destinations as well.

If you want to stop people from traveling to Montreal, you need to figure out why the hell anyone would want to go to Montreal in the first place. Eliminating one type of vehicle for that trip isn't going to accomplish that.

Translation, in case you are the type that struggles with analogies:
If you want to stop people from adopting attitudes of bigotry, misogyny, racism and hatred, you need to figure out why people adopt these beliefs in the first place. Eliminating one type of vehicle for those beliefs isn't going to accomplish that.

In other words, the connection between "religion" and "bigotry" is about as meaningful as the connection between "smoking" and "lung cancer".

Not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer. It's a relatively small percentage, actually.
Not everybody with lung cancer is a smoker.

Given this and your line of argumentation to date in the thread, I wonder if you will equally vehemently object to the perpetual government produced and mandated propaganda that smoking somehow causes lung cancer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In other words, the connection between "religion" and "bigotry" is about as meaningful as the connection between "smoking" and "lung cancer".

Not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer. It's a relatively small percentage, actually.
Not everybody with lung cancer is a smoker.

I agree that this could be a possible criticism of the argument as described, but as an analogy it is flawed. Blaming religion is more akin to blaming cells for lung cancer because neither religion nor cells are the primary starting points for the negative outcomes being discussed. Additionally, religion is used for both positive and negative outcomes as it relates to the same circumstance as shown by anyone being able to come up with a quote from a sacred text to support anything at all they want. I will remind you that the Quran can be quoted to be against pre-marital sex, forced prostitution, and adultery and we don't have anything in the op even linking the loser criminals in the op to sacred texts they are following to drug people and commit acts of pre-marital sex.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will add--my conclusion that religion is neutral in no way is meant make 'religion is a problem' issue go away. And that's because since religion is merely neutral, it is not adequate as a social institution of humankind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On the other hand, I know that riding in airplanes will result in you having to go through airport security. I know this for the simple fact that all airports have security procedures in place to screen passengers and luggage.

So while I cannot conclusively say that you boarding an airplane means you went to Montreal, I DO know that you had to go through security to get on the plane.

Disagree. I've boarded a plane without going through security--general aviation, not commercial aviation.