The differences between religious and non-religious brains.

[Hawker]

Understood


No offense taken.


@Bold: I think you explained yourself well and I do get what you're saying but that is still contradictory to the scientific process. Evidence and proof are not one and the same. A good scientist would say that based on current evidence, the possibility of a higher being is unlikely. They wouldn't draw the definitive conclusion that it simply isn't real, which is what you just said an atheist would do, rather they would say with relative certainty that the hypothesis is reliable.

The difference isn't in making a claim, but in labeling the claim as "fact". A fact is something that can be proven. There actually isn't a scientific method for testing the existence of deities. And since it isn't testable through a scientific method, which is how scientists form theories and conclusions, their existence, or lack thereof, can't be concluded as a fact. Our understanding of how the physical world works isn't definitive proof of there being no higher power, at least scientifically speaking.

You must be registered for see links

^^This is just something I thought you'd like reading. It's not really about this topic per se..it's just a good read on the relation between science, faith, atheism, etc

Hmm, yeah I get what you're saying. I didn't mean atheist thought the non-existence of a deity is a fact, but rather than based on facts at our disposal (=no scientific evidence about a diety) we can conclude that as of now there is no god. Same way as I can conclude that there are no unicorns. It just means that no one hasn't proven that there are unicorns. I'm not saying it's a fact, I'm saying I have no reason to believe something like that exists. So basically the whole consept of a diety is not relevant if there's not a single evidence supporting it, so there's no need for an atheist to label the non-existence of a diety as fact, it's just something irrelevant. So no one is claiming it to be a fact that a diety doesn't exist, but rather they are claiming it isn't a fact that a diety exists. And the middle ground is absence of belief to a diety until proven otherwise. And thus atheism operates the same way as science. Based on proof. Might be that I'm wrong on this and some other atheist might refute this whole post, but anyway this is my take on this. Now did this make any sense? lol

^while I said all that from the general view of atheists, I consider myself as an agnostic atheist, but I'm pretty sure that basically the same thing as most of atheists.

And thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check that article tomorrow, now I'm too tired.


EDIT: lol I forgot my popcorns to the microwave while replying to you and they burned to crisp. Epic fail.

 

[Troyg39]

EDIT: lol I forgot my popcorns to the microwave while replying to you and they burned to crisp. Epic fail.

Lol damn I owe you a bag man

 

[Jᴀʏ]

Empathy has nothing to do with creating software. Also, read the thread properly. A catholic background would enhance his empathetic thinking.

Also, a study is not universal. Correlation does not equal causation. This study simply points out a pattern between religion and brain patterns, not a law.

Exactly, Correlation is not Casuation this thread is jumping to conclusions case closed.

@Hawker I'd just like to say that the brain is the most complex object in the universe, attempting to identitfy distinctions would almost be pseudo-science.

Also you're idea of religion is so generalized its amazing.

Religion: Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".


The definition is broader than you may think, and there are many instances in history where religion has influenced progress and stopped progress, progress is not always a good thing mind you.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Such as black holes. We are told by the experts that millions of black holes have been discovered from the microscopic to ones that are 100's if not 1000's of solar masses. But when the so called experts are backed into a corner they admit it. That their 'discoveries' are based on computer models based on their equations in short nothing to do with actual observations or experiment.

They are the prophets, their journals and science magazines are their holy books used to spread their message.

The same can be said for its counterpart the big bang, evolution too. Science is not based on opinion, voting is not needed in science. Science is about finding out about things and proving those things, it isn't concerned about whether anyone likes the findings or not. If something cannot be proven by observation and experiment then it can never be scientific fact. Evolution, big bang, black holes etc can't be proven by observations and experiment therefore they aren't factual.

And what does any of that have to do with evolution?

I asked you why you think evolution is a religion, and your answer is black holes in space(which has nothing to do with what I asked) . Do you even know what evolution is?

Yes, science is not concerned with what you choose to believe, but its quite revealing that instead of actually studying or even knowing the basic facts of what youre trying to disprove, you label it as a religion.

 

[NarutoKage2]

So if someone decides to leave a religion, they'll instantly gain more IQ points?

If staying in a religion means denying(w.o even examining), cosmology,astronomy, geology, and biology then yes.

 

[Marin]

Exactly, Correlation is not Casuation this thread is jumping to conclusions case closed.

@Hawker I'd just like to say that the brain is the most complex object in the universe, attempting to identitfy distinctions would almost be pseudo-science.

Also you're idea of religion is so generalized its amazing.

Religion: Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".


The definition is broader than you may think, and there are many instances in history where religion has influenced progress and stopped progress, progress is not always a good thing mind you.

Definitions... dont get me started on defitions...

 

[Edogawa]

Hawker, you need to practice reading accurately, mate.

I never said religion itself invented technology we use today. I said the religious civilisations, if you're ignorant of what that means, civilisations governed by religion that did. Would you like few examples? I'm happy to give it to you. Inventor of Algebra was Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, one of the greatest scientists in the Islamic Golden Age. Inventor of Calculus was Newton, one of the greatest scientists in the British Empire, which was a Catholic Christian state.

I can bring up a countless more, but I think mentioning inventors of mathematical subjects should be enough.

The civilisations that invented the governing system and technology humanity uses to this day were religiously conservative. So, religious institutions do not hold back progress of society but have progressed more than atheist societies, like Communist societies, which turned to a total collapse.


On the point of morality, morals are taught and interpreted depending on the society. Your morals are not superior to religious morality. Never have and never will. The morals that you currently possess, like helping the poor and respectful to your neighbour, were thanks to the religious institutions that even you left religion still maintain them within you. Religious people give more to charity than atheists do, according to the UK's magazine. But, let's ask ourselves the question: Why do atheists give to charity? Because after leaving their still religion, they still maintained the religious institutions that encourage helping the poor. Let's ask ourselves again: Do atheists have morals? They have morals thanks to religion.

Oh, about European countries and Middle Ages; European countries that became global empires and industrialized the science were religiously conservative. So, you failed on that point too.

By the way, I'm waiting for you to show me an atheist civilisation, if it ever existed. :bdpf:

Have a nice, little boy, and good luck at school.

 

[Yubel]

Well I do admit that there are negative sides to narcissistic or psychopath leader such as:

-straightforwardness
-un-able to be a team player
-too much self confidence/ arrogance/ risktaker
-big ego affecting the workplace morality etc.

So I won't be adressing them as I think they are self evident. Psychopaths and narcist are douches. But the titles of most of the articles and studies assert always something postive about those traits in relation to leading. So I think it's futile to adress the negative points as in the end the pros outweigh the cons as the titles suggest.

I'll be willing to talk about emotions driving decisions too if you'd make your point on how it is relevant for a good leader? The article you posted was quite arbitrary and didn't provide any data. The study from Damasio is like 15-20 pages long so I'm not reading it tonight and I do think that it being neuroscience more than psychology that it goes way over my head lol.

The wikipedia studies I linked you before clearly show that some emotions are very bad for decision making. But then again I don't know if this has got anything do with the neuroscientic point of view. It may be that we are talking about different things?

Dude, so far more than 3 of your studies have supported that narcissism/psychopathism is bad for any leadership position. If you'll find a narcissist that is a good leader I can almost guarantee at this point that it has nothing to do with their narcissism.

And what is a good leader? Perhaps our definitions differ but a leader is not all charisma. He has a trackrecord. He's trustworthy, responsible and an achiever. If you can't accomplish as a leader you'll destroy your organization, but of course since you're a narcissist. You will blame others for it and not your own incompetence.

Similar studies like this have been done in the past as it relates to self-esteem and academic performance. As it turns out, students in China have a worse self esteem than the US but their academic performance is several times greater.

I view these studies in the same light, narcissism has zero relationship with what you can do.
I've already confirmed that and you've already lost credibility when misrepresenting facts(which you still are) and arguing for them for several pages.

For that reason and because I value my time. I won't bother to look at these other studies because you're not trying to understand facts, you're just trying to be right and I don't have time for that shit.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Hawker, you need to practice reading accurately, mate.

I never said religion itself invented technology we use today. I said the religious civilisations, if you're ignorant of what that means, civilisations governed by religion that did. Would you like few examples? I'm happy to give it to you. Inventor of Algebra was Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, one of the greatest scientists in the Islamic Golden Age. Inventor of Calculus was Newton, one of the greatest scientists in the British Empire, which was a Catholic Christian state.

I can bring up a countless more, but I think mentioning inventors of mathematical subjects should be enough.

The civilisations that invented the governing system and technology humanity uses to this day were religiously conservative. So, religious institutions do not hold back progress of society but have progressed more than atheist societies, like Communist societies, which turned to a total collapse.


On the point of morality, morals are taught and interpreted depending on the society. Your morals are not superior to religious morality. Never have and never will. The morals that you currently possess, like helping the poor and respectful to your neighbour, were thanks to the religious institutions that even you left religion still maintain them within you. Religious people give more to charity than atheists do, according to the UK's magazine. But, let's ask ourselves the question: Why do atheists give to charity? Because after leaving their still religion, they still maintained the religious institutions that encourage helping the poor. Let's ask ourselves again: Do atheists have morals? They have morals thanks to religion.

Oh, about European countries and Middle Ages; European countries that became global empires and industrialized the science were religiously conservative. So, you failed on that point too.

By the way, I'm waiting for you to show me an atheist civilisation, if it ever existed. :bdpf:

Have a nice, little boy, and good luck at school.

And the polytheistic Greeks who believed in multiple gods gave us pythogoras, in 7-800 BC, no less.

The ancient Egyptians, land of the god kings, gave us the worlds first calendar.

While ptlomey(also a pagan, polytheistic Greek) was the first to develop astronomy and develop the concept of a spherical(round) earth.

I wonder what conclusion one has to reach when scientific advancement proceeds regardless of the religious belief of the discoverers(the national belief with which they happened to be born). ?

 

[Hawker]

Hawker, you need to practice reading accurately, mate.

I never said religion itself invented technology we use today. I said the religious civilisations, if you're ignorant of what that means, civilisations governed by religion that did. Would you like few examples? I'm happy to give it to you. Inventor of Algebra was Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, one of the greatest scientists in the Islamic Golden Age. Inventor of Calculus was Newton, one of the greatest scientists in the British Empire, which was a Catholic Christian state.

I can bring up a countless more, but I think mentioning inventors of mathematical subjects should be enough.

The civilisations that invented the governing system and technology humanity uses to this day were religiously conservative. So, religious institutions do not hold back progress of society but have progressed more than atheist societies.

I'm so glad you brought up Islamic golden age because it does well to prove my point.

Yes, it is clear that Islamic world had their fare share of scientific inventions, but ONLY before they went on a conservative rampage mode.
It has been speculated that the muslims lost their status as the intellictual center of the world in the Golden Age of Islam for the fact that religion and science contradicted one another. At the end of that era for example a muslim scholar Al-Ghazzali preached that mathematics was the work of the devil. He only favoured things that didn't contradict the claims in the koran. He was also against the works of many non muslims as they were from heathen influences. His views were regressive like studying the greeks which he discouraged unlike past philosophers of his time.
Muslims chose the path where they saw and still see koran as a law book which tells them how to live. This path was essentially the path that lead them away from their knowledge of science.
The whole foundation of their scientific studies collapsed when their religion based philosophy was against the basic elements of science. Revealation replaced investigation. <--- again religion stood in the way of rational based progression

Do you know that today all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel prizes than Trinity College in Cambridge? Throughout times there have been 567 nobel prizes given to 889 recipients. Do you know how many of those recipients have been muslims? 13. And there's 1,6 billion muslims in the world

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

So in case of Islam religion in fact stood in the way of progress. It's clear as a day. So your argument: "religious institutions do not hold back progress of society but have progressed more than atheist societies." is inherently wrong, because who knows how many inventions Islam cost us.

On the point of morality, morals are taught and interpreted depending on the society. Your morals are not superior to religious morality. Never have and never will. The morals that you currently possess, like helping the poor and respectful to your neighbour, were thanks to the religious institutions that even you left still maintain them within you. Religious people give more to charity than atheists do, according to the UK's magazine. But, let's ask ourselves the question: Why do atheists give to charity? Because after leaving their still religion, they still maintained the religious institutions that encourage helping the poor. Let's ask ourselves again: Do atheists have morals? They have morals thanks to religion.

It's funny how you ignored my post about morals. I'll post it again:

There is a positive correlation between the degree of involvement with religion and intolerant and prejudiced opinion. Because religiosity has been found to correlate with increased racial prejudice, intolerance of non-conformists, and a punitive rather than forgiving attitude. 34 of 44 findings, from 36 studies conducted between 1940 and 1975, suggest a positive relationship between intolerance and involvement in religion, with only 2 of these 44 findings bucking this trend (See Batson, C. Daniel in Religion, Intolerance and Conflict: A Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, edited by Steve Clarke, 2013) The best predictor of religiosity is income inequality, EUA is an example. Religious commitment in the United States is highly correlated with racism too. This should abolish the ever present claim that religion is the most important warrant of morality.(See Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 126–139)


Like Richard Dawkins says: "If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don’t believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way through the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, ‘Look at that. That’s religion,’ and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, ‘Oh, we don’t believe that anymore. We’ve grown out of that.’ Well, of course we’ve grown out it. We’ve grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

Current western morals and my morals are indeed superior to that of religious morals. I have now provided you with examples on how religion has stood in the way of the progress of morality.

Oh, about European countries and Middle Ages; European countries that became global empires and industrialized the science were religiously conservative. So, you failed on that point too.

By the way, I'm waiting for you to show me an atheist civilisation, if it ever existed. :bdpf:

Religion has been apart in nearly all of the countries in the world. God was essential to explain anything that they did not understand or could not control. So no there really haven't been any atheist society, but oh look, currently atheism is increasing and we are advancing more than ever in matters of science. LOL!
I also like how you didn't answer to my question: has religion ever answered anything of significanse? While religious societies have indeed invented alot of things you can't put this as a merit for religiosity. In fact like in Islamic world religion has also stood up in front of the progress in Western world too:

Look at who set us back from the advancements of Greek and Roman culture to pitch us into the Dark Ages, and who executed people who proved biblical dictates (like a flat Earth or a geocentric model of the solar system)- religion.

-Look who fought against education for women? Religion.
Even though it is a studied fact that the socioeconomic impact of female education constitutes a significant area of research within international development. Increases in the amount of female education in regions tends to correlate with high levels of development.

You must be registered for see links

-Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.He was tried by the Inquisition after.

You must be registered for see links

-Nicholas Copernicus:Nicholas Copernicus (1473 - 1543), mathematician and astronomer, established a model of the universe with the sun, rather than earth, at its center.His most notable book, On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies, was highly controversial when it was published in 1543 and was banned by the religious conservatives.

You must be registered for see links

-The Archimedes Palimpsest is a parchment codex palimpsest, which originally was a 10th-century Byzantine Greek copy of an otherwise unknown work of the Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse and other authors. Archimedes worked on some math that could have laid the foundations of calculus. It was overwritten with a Christian religious text by 13th-century monks. We lost over 400 years when they did that.

You must be registered for see links

And examples how religion in modern times has impeded progress:


-There is currently a measure in the state of Louisiana whereby students are receiving public vouchers to attend private schools. In these classes, students are being taught that the Loch Ness monster is living proof that dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that the Earth can only be about 6,000 years old as claimed by biblical historians. This is an ABSOLUTE EXAMPLE of religion deliberately holding back the progress of young minds to develop in a positive and rational way.

You must be registered for see links

-The US government ban on stem cell research, based on religious influence, has slowed discovery in the US while other countries are continuing to make important advances. When science and technology ventures into areas that threaten religious tenets the religious community rises up and compels government to restrict that research.

You must be registered for see links

Also:

>It's a studied fact that conservatists are more prone to racism and to have lower iq.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

>Add to that religious people are usually conservatists:

You must be registered for see links

"In a paper (link is external) in press at the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Jacob Hirsh, Megan Walberg, and Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto asked approximately 1,300 people in the US and Canada their political orientations.....The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition—respect for customs and institutions"

>And also religious people have generally lower iq than atheists:

You must be registered for see links

"Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades"


In conclusion:


So no I'm not saying that religious societies did not invent alot of things, but that religiosity at it's most fundamental core, has on several occasions stood in the way of progress in history and is still affecting on people's brains in a negative way. Add to that no achievement in science is based on religion. And my op was conserning today, so it's not irrelevant. How can you say that? There's a clear distinction between a normal religious person's brains and a normal non-religious person's brains. I provided you with other studies too which back this up. So you saying this study is irrelevant is just not right.

If religious folks dominated the world, we'd still be in the caves. We would have never left the caves. Because there are mysterious things out there: "Oh God is doing that!", and "You don't need to know that, don't even think about it". If those who believed in religion in the most conservative way, if those people's understanding ruled the world, where would we be?


If all that was too long to read, my thoughts on religion and on religious people can be summarized into one sentence:

God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on, and so does religion.

Lastly:

Doctor Feynman said in his physics textbook (not exactly the same words): If world is the chess game created by God, then science is studying the rule of this game.
Therefore as you can see, religion is to admire the super spirit who created the "rule", and science, on the other hand, is to study the rule

Have a nice, little boy, and good luck at school.

You too, enjoy the demolition

 

[Yatori]

I am surprised by the amount of data you have collected and read. But why it is still not enough? Why did you keep searching? Is it your heart feels restless? Or you have not found the ultimate answer yet? Or you feeling insecured to what is your beliefs? May God guide you to the right path

 

[Hawker]

Dude, so far more than 3 of your studies have supported that narcissism/psychopathism is bad for any leadership position. If you'll find a narcissist that is a good leader I can almost guarantee at this point that it has nothing to do with their narcissism.

And what is a good leader? Perhaps our definitions differ but a leader is not all charisma. He has a trackrecord. He's trustworthy, responsible and an achiever. If you can't accomplish as a leader you'll destroy your organization, but of course since you're a narcissist. You will blame others for it and not your own incompetence.

Similar studies like this have been done in the past as it relates to self-esteem and academic performance. As it turns out, students in China have a worse self esteem than the US but their academic performance is several times greater.

I view these studies in the same light, narcissism has zero relationship with what you can do.
I've already confirmed that and you've already lost credibility when misrepresenting facts(which you still are) and arguing for them for several pages.

For that reason and because I value my time. I won't bother to look at these other studies because you're not trying to understand facts, you're just trying to be right and I don't have time for that shit.

Why are you living in denial? I posted you what, 8-10 studies and articles which all concurred that narcissist and psychopaths are better leaders. Most if not all of those studies started with the phrase "Narcist/psychopath is a better leader than a normal leader" (paraphrasing). Ofcourse they have flaws, some of them huge, but there was a clear correlation shown and the pros outweighed the cons.

Bolded: that just isn't true. It is true you found many negative sides to narcissism and I concur with those, but the fact that the figure for psychopaths is 4 times more higher within CEO's and industry leaders than within general population, speaks volumes FOR the trait. There's a clear correlation for psychopathy and succes. I never talked about causation, but from the start I've said that generally narcissist and psychopaths tend to be better leaders. Just look at the greatest U.S presidents.

And what is a good leader you ask? Well imo the good leader is not just a psychopath, but a guy who indeed is trustworthy and has empathy.

About China you are correct. I'd also like to add Japan there. But I think it is because of how they are raised to benefit the society and not theirselves. Everyone knows Japan is not based on individualism, but rather society based.

I most certainly understand the facts about these traits. Because I've studied them for the last 3-4 years. If you'd want to talk about negative sides to them in social life then I'd be happy to discuss about it, but it's a discussion for a different topic. This is about leadership, and while you may not like it, I'm right on this.

And yeah I don't care if you don't look at the rest of my studies, which clearly are in favour of my point of view. Also you didn't even answer my examples of wikipedia studies which clearly concluded that emotions are bad for decision making. There were atleast 6-7 studies there (add to the 10 studies on psychopathy/narcissism that I've already posted). They also strenghtened the argument that a person who is less capable of emotions is inherently a better leader than a leader with emotions.

But then again I thought this was something most people took as a self evident thing, but whatever suits you the best I guess.

 

[Yubel]

Why are you living in denial? I posted you what, 8-10 studies and articles which all concurred that narcissist and psychopaths are better leaders. Most if not all of those studies started with the phrase "Narcist/psychopath is a better leader than a normal leader" (paraphrasing). Ofcourse they have flaws, some of them huge, but there was a clear correlation shown and the pros outweighed the cons.

Bolded: that just isn't true. It is true you found many negative sides to narcissism and I concur with those, but the fact that the figure for psychopaths is 4 times more higher within CEO's and industry leaders than within general population, speaks volumes FOR the trait. There's a clear correlation for psychopathy and succes. I never talked about causation, but from the start I've said that generally narcissist and psychopaths tend to be better leaders. Just look at the greatest U.S presidents.

And what is a good leader you ask? Well imo the good leader is not just a psychopath, but a guy who indeed is trustworthy and has empathy.

About China you are correct. I'd also like to add Japan there. But I think it is because of how they are raised to benefit the society and not theirselves. Everyone knows Japan is not based on individualism, but rather society based.

I most certainly understand the facts about these traits. Because I've studied them for the last 3-4 years. If you'd want to talk about negative sides to them in social life then I'd be happy to discuss about it, but it's a discussion for a different topic. This is about leadership, and while you may not like it, I'm right on this.

And yeah I don't care if you don't look at the rest of my studies, which clearly are in favour of my point of view. Also you didn't even answer my examples of wikipedia studies which clearly concluded that emotions are bad for decision making. There were atleast 6-7 studies there (add to the 10 studies on psychopathy/narcissism that I've already posted). They also strenghtened the argument that a person who is less capable of emotions is inherently a better leader than a leader with emotions.

But then again I thought this was something most people took as a self evident thing, but whatever suits you the best I guess.

Bolded: You're jumping to conclusions. It helps in making your stand out, nothing more. Compare studies with facts, not your assumptions.

 

[Marin]

I'm so glad you brought up Islamic golden age because it does well to prove my point.

Yes, it is clear that Islamic world had their fare share of scientific inventions. ONLY before they went on a conservative rampage mode.
It has been speculated that the muslims lost their status as the intellictual center of the world in the Golden Age of Islam for the fact that religion and science contradicted one another. At the end of that era for example a muslim scholar Al-Ghazzali preached that mathematics was the work of the devil. He only favoured things that didn't contradict the claims in the koran. He was also against the works of many non muslims as they were from heathen influences. His views were regressive like studying the greeks which he discouraged unlike past philosophers of his time.
Muslims chose the path where they saw and still see koran as a law book which tells them how to live. This path was essentially the path that lead them away from their knowledge of science.
The whole foundation of their scientific studies collapsed when their religion based philosophy was against the basic elements of science. Revealation replaced investigation. <--- again religion stood in the way of rational based progression

Do you know that today all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel prizes than Trinity College in Cambridge? Throughout times there have been 567 nobel prizes given to 889 recipients. Do you know how many of those recipients have been muslims? 13. And there's 1,6 billion muslims in the world

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

So in case of Islam religion in fact stood in the way of progress. It's clear as a day. So your argument: "religious institutions do not hold back progress of society but have progressed more than atheist societies." is inherently wrong, because who knows how many inventions Islam cost us.



It's funny how you ignored my post about morals. I'll do it again

There is a positive correlation between the degree of involvement with religion and intolerant and prejudiced opinion. Because religiosity has been found to correlate with increased racial prejudice, intolerance of non-conformists, and a punitive rather than forgiving attitude. 34 of 44 findings, from 36 studies conducted between 1940 and 1975, suggest a positive relationship between intolerance and involvement in religion, with only 2 of these 44 findings bucking this trend (See Batson, C. Daniel in Religion, Intolerance and Conflict: A Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, edited by Steve Clarke, 2013) The best predictor of religiosity is income inequality, EUA is an example. Religious commitment in the United States is highly correlated with racism too. This should abolish the ever present claim that religion is the most important warrant of morality.(See Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 126–139)


Like Richard Dawkins says: "If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don’t believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way through the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, ‘Look at that. That’s religion,’ and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, ‘Oh, we don’t believe that anymore. We’ve grown out of that.’ Well, of course we’ve grown out it. We’ve grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

Current western morals and my morals are indeed superior to that of religious morals. I have now provided you with examples on how religion has stood in the way of the progress of morality.



Religion has been apart in nearly all of the countries in the world. God was essential to explain anything that they did not understand or could not control. So no there really haven't been any atheist society, but oh look, currently atheism is increasing and we are advancing more than ever in matters of science. LOL!
I also like how you didn't answer to my question: has religion ever answered anything of significanse? While religious societies have indeed invented alot of things you can't put this as a merit for religiosity. In fact like in Islamic world religion has also stood up in front of the progress in Western world too:

Look at who set us back from the advancements of Greek and Roman culture to pitch us into the Dark Ages, and who executed people who proved biblical dictates (like a flat Earth or a geocentric model of the solar system)- religion.

-Look who fought against education for women? Religion.
Even though it is a studied fact that the socioeconomic impact of female education constitutes a significant area of research within international development. Increases in the amount of female education in regions tends to correlate with high levels of development.

You must be registered for see links

-Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.He was tried by the Inquisition after.

You must be registered for see links

-Nicholas Copernicus:Nicholas Copernicus (1473 - 1543), mathematician and astronomer, established a model of the universe with the sun, rather than earth, at its center.His most notable book, On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies, was highly controversial when it was published in 1543 and was banned by the religious conservatives.

You must be registered for see links

-The Archimedes Palimpsest is a parchment codex palimpsest, which originally was a 10th-century Byzantine Greek copy of an otherwise unknown work of the Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse and other authors. Archimedes worked on some math that could have laid the foundations of calculus. It was overwritten with a Christian religious text by 13th-century monks. We lost over 400 years when they did that.

You must be registered for see links

And examples how religion in modern times has impeded progress:


-There is currently a measure in the state of Louisiana whereby students are receiving public vouchers to attend private schools. In these classes, students are being taught that the Loch Ness monster is living proof that dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that the Earth can only be about 6,000 years old as claimed by biblical historians. This is an ABSOLUTE EXAMPLE of religion deliberately holding back the progress of young minds to develop in a positive and rational way.

You must be registered for see links

-The US government ban on stem cell research, based on religious influence, has slowed discovery in the US while other countries are continuing to make important advances. When science and technology ventures into areas that threaten religious tenets the religious community rises up and compels government to restrict that research.

You must be registered for see links

Also:

>It's a studied fact that conservatists are more prone to racism and to have lower iq.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

>Add to that religious people are usually conservatists:

You must be registered for see links

"In a paper (link is external) in press at the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Jacob Hirsh, Megan Walberg, and Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto asked approximately 1,300 people in the US and Canada their political orientations.....The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition—respect for customs and institutions"

>And also religious people have generally lower iq than atheists:

You must be registered for see links

"Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades"


So no I'm not saying that religious societies did not invent alot of things, but that religiosity at it's most fundamental core, has on several occasions stood in the way of progress in history and is still affecting on people's brains in a negative way. Add to that no achievement in science is based on religion. And my op was conserning today, so it's not irrelevant. How can you say that? There's a clear distinction between a normal religious person's brains and a normal non-religious person's brains. I provided you with other studies too which back this up. So you saying this study is irrelevant is just not right.

Lastly:

Doctor Feynman said in his physics textbook (not exactly the same words): If world is the chess game created by God, then science is studying the rule of this game.
Therefore as you can see, religion is to admire the super spirit who created the "rule", and science, on the other hand, is to study the rule



You too, enjoy the demolition

"I've been in military so I don't write walls of texts."

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

I am surprised by the amount of data you have collected and read. But why it is still not enough? Why did you keep searching? Is it your heart feels restless? Or you have not found the ultimate answer yet? Or you feeling insecured to what is your beliefs? May God guide you to the right path

If one does not read the Quaran. They do evil deeds.

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

Dem walls O'China.

 

[Dark Sonic]

If one does not read the Quaran. They do evil deeds.

We know what will it lead on this post!!

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

We know what will it lead on this post!!

If you do five times prayer each day you got nothing to worry. Islam is about peace not hate. So spread the word.

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

If you do five times prayer each day you got nothing to worry. Islam is about peace not hate. So spread the word.

I get a good nap hearing the recitations at times. I feel you.

 

[Gerkak]

And what does any of that have to do with evolution?

I asked you why you think evolution is a religion, and your answer is black holes in space(which has nothing to do with what I asked) . Do you even know what evolution is?

Yes, science is not concerned with what you choose to believe, but its quite revealing that instead of actually studying or even knowing the basic facts of what youre trying to disprove, you label it as a religion.

Your reply was, "such as" my post was a highlighting the general worship of theories. Your response was vague.

I know what evolution is, calm down. For something to be scientific fact it must be observable, measurable and must have a laboratory test. Evolution has never been observed(supposedly because it takes millions of years) and we can't replicate it in a lab. That means we have no way of knowing it is a fact. Yet there are loads of people who use it in everyday language as if it is a done deal.

Again, learn to read. I never said evolution as a theory was a religion. I made up the term "evolutionism to highlight the difference between the two. Evolutionism is the blind faith and acceptance of the theory of evolution to be fact without evidence. I didn't think this would be so hard to grasp. Maybe you should check the definition of a religion.