Christ Centered Gamer

Selderane, I'm sorry you aren't interested in carrying on this conversation. I didn't feel like we were "burning" each other. We were having a good debate with real arguments on a topic that oodles of highly intelligent people disagree on. Archangel was just saying "YES" to show he agreed with me. Was that so insulting? I feel like I'm missing out by not getting to talk to you about this any more.

ArcticFox: The analogy that came to my mind was actually people who hold up pictures of dead fetuses outside the Planned Parenthood offices, so people going to get abortions have to look at them on the way in. I know those people are often dismissed as not being truly sincere in their motives—they're said to be trying to intimidate women as a means of social control. While there's no denying that their means are abrasive, I think they really sincerely believe they are saving babies from being murdered by people who would see the error of their ways if they would only stop to look at the reality of what they're doing. These atheists, I think, are surely abrasive in their means, but I think they really sincerely believe they are giving some people the courage to stop believing in ridiculous myths by showing them that living in reality is actually an option and there are likeminded people who would support them if they made that choice.

I understand your point, but keep in mind there's a pretty big difference between abrasively attacking a specific act and attacking an entire population purely on what they believe. You can argue and debate abortion as an action that can be evaluated as either moral, immoral or neutral. The photographs those people put on their signs is, however disturbing, actual photographic evidence of the point they're trying to prove. Unless you've had an abortion or are for some other reason highly emotionally invested in it, it's only a bunch of disturbing imagery. You're right when you point out that these people at least have their heart in the right place, but what they're trying to stop is, from their point of view, mass murder.

On the other hand, to outright call the personal beliefs of millions of people a myth is not only a derisive way to express one's views but is outright disrespectful and for what? Are any lives at stake? Is Christianity as awful to these Atheists as abortion is to pro-life protesters?

I know you were only making an analogy so I won't keep splitting the hair, but what I'm getting at is that if the pro-life protesters you mentioned get their way, they save a LOT of lives (in their view.) If the Atheists behind this billboard het their way they get... validation. Which is the nobler goal?

Have you spoken with many atheists on what they view the stakes of their "mission" to be? From my conversations, and from reading people like Richard Dawkins, I gather that many atheists feel like much more is at stake than how you're characterizing it. For one, they believe that religion is a major factor holding back scientific advancement. Denial of evolution by the public leads to less public funds going toward education and research on that subject, which inhibits advancement of the biological sciences, cheating us all out of potential medical breakthroughs that could save lives. They also believe that religion is a major (perhaps THE major) cause of war, violence, and human rights abuses. Some think that the belief of certain Christians that the world is set to end in the near future has caused too few people to take environmental problems seriously. Others see religion as at best a waste of resources, at worst a way to swindle well-meaning but gullible people out of their life's savings. Basically, in their minds religion is an extremely destructive force within the human race that, indeed, ruins and ends a LOT of lives. It's an epidemic of delusion that is shackling our species into mediocrity or worse. Obviously, people are free to disagree that religion is so harmful, but that's how harmful they think religion is. So I do believe that by putting up these billboards, the atheists sincerely believe they are participating in something of extreme importance.

To answer your question, yes.

In my experience, there are two kinds of Atheists. There's the "I just don't believe in a god but you do your own thing" Atheists who are prettymuch the same as everybody else, believing in what they do and leaving others alone. The other kind is the validation-seeking Atheist who actively tries to get others to agree with them. (Note: This is exactly the same way I'd divide religious people. One of the reasons I regard Atheism as a religion. The only true default position is agnosticism, and Agnostics tend to be more reasonable in general.)

Try as you might, you're not going to successfully present the people behind the billboard as somehow nobly working toward the betterment of mankind. Each of the reasons you listed for why Atheists think doing away with religion is based on exaggeration and red herring logic. It's using the same thought process the self-validators accuse the other side of using.

At the risk of sidetracking, I'll give one example.

The Myth: "religion is a major (perhaps THE major) cause of war, violence, and human rights abuses."

Wars that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion:
-Iraq/Desert Storm
-Vietnam Conflict
-Korean War
-World War II
-The Spanish Civil War
-World War I
-Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
-The Falkland Islands War
-The Spanish-American War
-The American Civil War

I think the first 10 examples I could think of will suffice.

Violence that has nothing to do with religion:
-People getting mugged
-Gang related murders
-Rape
-Drug induced violence
-Violence in the above wars
-Schoolyard fights

Am I making my point?

Humans Rights Abuses that have nothing to do with religion:
-North Korean internal policies
-Chinese internal policies
-African Slavery in America
-Roman slavery of prettymuch everybody they beat in a war (Another non-religious war)

So, Atheists, the ones who often pat themselves on the back for being the most reasonable and rational thinkers in all of human history, are just as prone to distorting the truth to support their position as anybody else, and so no, Truthseeker, they don't get the benefit of the doubt when they put up a trolling billboard in the middle of Christmastime calling others' beliefs a myth.

ArcticFox wrote:Am I making my point?

The point you're making is that the belief that religion has been the major cause of war and violence in history is not well-founded. You aren't really making the point that a substantial portion of atheists don't sincerely hold that belief, though. You might be saying something like "this point of view is obviously wrong, therefore they can't really believe it, therefore they probably have an ulterior motive other than advancing a belief they think is important to the betterment of humanity." I definitely find myself thinking along that track too often, but I want to be more open-minded.

Whether or not these athesists believe any of the particular claims I listed in my previous post (religion hinders science, religion causes war, etc.) I'd wager that at the very least they believe that the human intellect is wasting away in the grip of a pervasive delusion, and they think this billboard method is the most effective way to get attention and build a movement toward God being widely regarded as a fictional creation. I don't necesarily equate that with merely seeking validation.

ArcticFox wrote:In my experience, there are two kinds of Atheists. There's the "I just don't believe in a god but you do your own thing" Atheists who are prettymuch the same as everybody else, believing in what they do and leaving others alone. The other kind is the validation-seeking Atheist who actively tries to get others to agree with them. (Note: This is exactly the same way I'd divide religious people...

So, Christians who try evangelizing are simply seeking validation? Even I would grant them the benefit that they are trying to do good and save others, even though I find them wrong.

...One of the reasons I regard Atheism as a religion...

That's an interesting qualification for a religion. Certainly, both sides are trying to reach the truth and are categorized by their beliefs, but there specific differences that make them disparate. For one, Christianity and other religions require belief in the supernatural. Atheism is simply the non belief in a supernatural deity. Each religion has an outline and structure to it's belief and traditions that should be adhered to. Atheism has no such thing; the only thing in common is that none of them believe in any religion. Religion requires faith, atheism not only requires no such thing, but is almost fully against it.
Now, this being said, Atheism is actually treated as a religion in American Law (TS, please correct me if I'm wrong) with regards to the First Amendment, but even the Supreme courts itself recognize the difference between Atheism being a religion and being regarded as a religion by the Free Exercise clause, but even then, the court states that it "is a somewhat different question." Needless to say, it's a pretty tenuous link between religion and atheism, where it both meets and doesn't meet various criteria. It's a belief concerning the supernatural, but it's also the antithesis of religion itself.

But I admit I'm letting this get out of hand. Regardless of whether it is considered a religion or not, the criticisms still stand and they don't automatically disappointing or carry over to atheism whether you group them together or not. (this is not claiming that atheists can't be guilty of tribalistic "us vs. them" mentalities, they certainly can.)

...The only true default position is agnosticism, and Agnostics tend to be more reasonable in general.)

Atheism is the logical conclusion to Agnosticism. It's illogical to believe in something you can't know. There is a lot of disagreement over the terminology, but the lack of knowledge of the existence of a God leads directly to a disbelief in God. The default is to not believe in something, and that's Atheism.

Try as you might, you're not going to successfully present the people behind the billboard as somehow nobly working toward the betterment of mankind. Each of the reasons you listed for why Atheists think doing away with religion is based on exaggeration and red herring logic.

Not at all. He's spot on. Is he exaggerating when he's saying people believe religion to be a cause of much suffering in the world?

The Myth: "religion is a major (perhaps THE major) cause of war, violence, and human rights abuses."

All right, so you made a list to which you believe religion isn't a cause of. For the most part, you're correct in it. There are many reasons why people do terrible things. Unfortunately, your list is far from exhaustive.
The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of atrocities that are either caused by or exasperated by religion. Much of the times, it's intermingled with politics or a lust for power, but religion serves as a catalyst. I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that religion wasn't involved in a very negative way in the Inquisition, various Crusades, conflicts and human rights violations in the Middle East, and so on.
Let's look no further than modern day America, where two consenting same sex adults cannot get married in most states? Why? Because religious people find it wrong. Why should one person's actions be imposed simply because a large subset of the population believes against it? I don't mean to bring the gay marriage issue into this debate, but it's a stark example that even here, religion imposes on people, even those who don't hold to it.

Now, I have seen religion do good things, both historically and personally. I've seen people get off the streets, drop drug addictions, and turn their lives around by running to religion. But I've also seen it harden peoples heart, and turn brother against brother. I've seen in stifle free thought and curiosity. I've seen it break people, wracked with guilt for something that would have never been a problem.

Regarding whether "atheism" is a religion for the purpose of the 1st Amendment, I've read cases that say it is a religion (like the Seventh Circuit case you cited) and cases that suggest that a law is unconstitutional if it discriminates in favor of religion over "nonreligion" (most of the Supreme Court cases I've read). That distinction isn't really significant because the end result either way is that government action that discriminates against atheism is unconstitutional.

It isn't very important to me whether one categorizes atheism as a religion, as long as atheism and agnosticism receive the same legal protection as religions like Christianity and Judaism.

Truthseeker wrote: The point you're making is that the belief that religion has been the major cause of war and violence in history is not well-founded. You aren't really making the point that a substantial portion of atheists don't sincerely hold that belief, though. You might be saying something like "this point of view is obviously wrong, therefore they can't really believe it, therefore they probably have an ulterior motive other than advancing a belief they think is important to the betterment of humanity." I definitely find myself thinking along that track too often, but I want to be more open-minded.

I have no idea what portion of atheists hold to that belief, so no, I'm not drawing any such conclusion. What I'm doing is pointing out that anyone who does espouse that belief is doing so without actually examining the evidence, which is absolutely contrary to what they claim to do.

Truthseeker wrote: Whether or not these athesists believe any of the particular claims I listed in my previous post (religion hinders science, religion causes war, etc.) I'd wager that at the very least they believe that the human intellect is wasting away in the grip of a pervasive delusion, and they think this billboard method is the most effective way to get attention and build a movement toward God being widely regarded as a fictional creation. I don't necesarily equate that with merely seeking validation.

Neither do I, and I never said they were equivalent. Having said that, I'm skeptical of the nobility motive.

ArchAngel wrote: So, Christians who try evangelizing are simply seeking validation? Even I would grant them the benefit that they are trying to do good and save others, even though I find them wrong.

Some are doing it to seek validation. I could tell you some stories...

ArchAngel wrote:That's an interesting qualification for a religion. Certainly, both sides are trying to reach the truth and are categorized by their beliefs, but there specific differences that make them disparate. For one, Christianity and other religions require belief in the supernatural. Atheism is simply the non belief in a supernatural deity. Each religion has an outline and structure to it's belief and traditions that should be adhered to. Atheism has no such thing; the only thing in common is that none of them believe in any religion.

I'll try and keep that in mind the next time I see a footed Darwin fish on the back of somebody's car. So it's either a show of belief, which is a religious thing to do, or it's outright trolling, which is what I accuse the makers of the billboard of.

ArchAngel wrote: Religion requires faith, atheism not only requires no such thing, but is almost fully against it.

I'd venture to say that Atheism requires belief in a number of statistically impossible events taking place, which is an exercise of great faith indeed.

Let's be honest here. The average person who doesn't believe in God had not really taken the time to approach it either scientifically or philosophically. They hold up people like Dawkins and Darwin to a level not unlike prophets would be in theist systems, and accept, on faith, that these men are worth following. It's a religious approach, even if you don't call it one. That isn't a criticism, it's an example of human nature.

ArchAngel wrote: Now, this being said, Atheism is actually treated as a religion in American Law (TS, please correct me if I'm wrong) with regards to the First Amendment, but even the Supreme courts itself recognize the difference between Atheism being a religion and being regarded as a religion by the Free Exercise clause, but even then, the court states that it "is a somewhat different question." Needless to say, it's a pretty tenuous link between religion and atheism, where it both meets and doesn't meet various criteria. It's a belief concerning the supernatural, but it's also the antithesis of religion itself.

It claims to be. See above.

ArchAngel wrote: But I admit I'm letting this get out of hand. Regardless of whether it is considered a religion or not, the criticisms still stand and they don't automatically disappointing or carry over to atheism whether you group them together or not. (this is not claiming that atheists can't be guilty of tribalistic "us vs. them" mentalities, they certainly can.)

Yep. Human nature.

ArchAngel wrote: Atheism is the logical conclusion to Agnosticism. It's illogical to believe in something you can't know. There is a lot of disagreement over the terminology, but the lack of knowledge of the existence of a God leads directly to a disbelief in God. The default is to not believe in something, and that's Atheism.

Except where validation is sought.

Actually, Atheism isn't the logical conclusion of Agnosticism because it makes an affirmative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. That, by definition makes it unscientific at the very least.

ArchAngel wrote:Not at all. He's spot on. Is he exaggerating when he's saying people believe religion to be a cause of much suffering in the world?

No, but that doesn't prove that this is the motive behind the billboard people.

ArchAngel wrote:All right, so you made a list to which you believe religion isn't a cause of. For the most part, you're correct in it. There are many reasons why people do terrible things. Unfortunately, your list is far from exhaustive.

Of course it is. I don't need to prove that religion doesn't cause war. I only need to show that it's pretty far from THE cause of war or even the largest cause.

ArchAngel wrote: The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of atrocities that are either caused by or exasperated by religion. Much of the times, it's intermingled with politics or a lust for power, but religion serves as a catalyst. I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that religion wasn't involved in a very negative way in the Inquisition, various Crusades, conflicts and human rights violations in the Middle East, and so on.

Sure. So? Again, I never said religion never caused war, my friend. You're trying to counter a point I didn't make. There's a word for that.

ArchAngel wrote: Let's look no further than modern day America, where two consenting same sex adults cannot get married in most states? Why? Because religious people find it wrong. Why should one person's actions be imposed simply because a large subset of the population believes against it? I don't mean to bring the gay marriage issue into this debate, but it's a stark example that even here, religion imposes on people, even those who don't hold to it.

Assuming you regard it as a human rights violation in the first place. Not exactly a consensus on that one, chief.

ArchAngel wrote: Now, I have seen religion do good things, both historically and personally. I've seen people get off the streets, drop drug addictions, and turn their lives around by running to religion. But I've also seen it harden peoples heart, and turn brother against brother. I've seen in stifle free thought and curiosity. I've seen it break people, wracked with guilt for something that would have never been a problem.

You know, modern science ought to be very grateful for the existence of religion. I hear a lot of garbage about how the Medieval Christian church suppressed and inhibited scientific progress during the first millennium. Garbage, because in fact the early Catholic Church was the mechanism by which writings were preserved and knowledge transmitted. It funded scientific work through grants. It provided the infrastructure and stability to permit such work to continue. Much is made of later conflicts between Church dogma and the discoveries by men like Galileo, but those incidents by no means tell the story of the true relationship between the Church and science prior to that time. Yes, in the Renaissance there was a lot of friction between secular factions and the Church, but that's a far more complex issue than an oversimplified God vs. learning thing.

ArcticFox wrote:Some are doing it to seek validation. I could tell you some stories...

Certainly some. But not all. I'm not sure if we could accurately quantify this as "most," but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say that most mean well, even if there is some self-validation going on, too.

I'll try and keep that in mind the next time I see a footed Darwin fish on the back of somebody's car. So it's either a show of belief, which is a religious thing to do, or it's outright trolling, which is what I accuse the makers of the billboard of.

I never liked the Darwin fish. Nor did I like the Jesus fish eating the Darwin Fish. The only play on the icthus I liked was one that said "Sushi."

ArchAngel wrote: Religion requires faith, atheism not only requires no such thing, but is almost fully against it.

I'd venture to say that Atheism requires belief in a number of statistically impossible events taking place, which is an exercise of great faith indeed.

What statistically impossible event needs to take place for someone to not believe in a God?

Let's be honest here. The average person who doesn't believe in God had not really taken the time to approach it either scientifically or philosophically. They hold up people like Dawkins and Darwin to a level not unlike prophets would be in theist systems, and accept, on faith, that these men are worth following. It's a religious approach, even if you don't call it one. That isn't a criticism, it's an example of human nature.

I have yet to see this. People greatly admire men like Dawkins, and I among them, but certainly not to a level of a prophet. People like Dawkins for what he says, and not on who he is. He isn't the end-all for truth and I don't know one person who considers him as such. If Dawkins starts saying the British monarchy is a bunch of lizard people, his "followers" will start to be scantly found, not chanting the same.

There's a huge difference between a religious following and admiration for certain people. A religious following stops at the word of it's leaders, sacred text, etc. When the Bible or the Book of Mormon says something, you believe it. When the Pope says jump, the Catholics jump. Anything otherwise is exercising outside of religion. No atheistic figurehead or work is given this sort of power. Even the strongest advocates of Science know that Science can be wrong and that it doesn't know everything, which is why we keep studying and experimenting.

The closest thing I can think of to an "atheist" religion is Scientology. No real deities, but certainly a rigorous belief system. I think you'll find most Atheists disdain this organization very much indeed.

Actually, Atheism isn't the logical conclusion of Agnosticism because it makes an affirmative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. That, by definition makes it unscientific at the very least.

Disbelief isn't an affirmative claim. Perhaps you are referring to Strong Atheism, which asserts that no gods or deities can or do exist, but that's certainly not encompassing of atheism. Even Dawkins doesn't hold to this brand. Atheism is the non-belief in a god or deity. Hardly an affirmative claim.

No, but that doesn't prove that this is the motive behind the billboard people.

There will be no proof for you. The people who made is explained what they are trying to do, and TS and I already explained perfectly acceptable alternative explanations and motivations, but you don't accept any of these. I'm not even sure what you're looking for.

Sure. So? Again, I never said religion never caused war, my friend. You're trying to counter a point I didn't make. There's a word for that.

Here I'll have to admit a mistake on my part. I thought you were addressing a point that claimed religion was a significant cause of war and human rights violations.

However, your list

ArchAngel wrote: Let's look no further than modern day America, where two consenting same sex adults cannot get married in most states? Why? Because religious people find it wrong. Why should one person's actions be imposed simply because a large subset of the population believes against it? I don't mean to bring the gay marriage issue into this debate, but it's a stark example that even here, religion imposes on people, even those who don't hold to it.

Assuming you regard it as a human rights violation in the first place. Not exactly a consensus on that one, chief.

I think you'll find I intentionally excluded the term "rights" on the grounds that you don't recognize it and this discussion is growing too large to include this. I'm talking about peoples actions be restricted because an outside religious group finds them immoral. It's not enough to control the people inside it's own religious group, it seeks to control others as well. I find this as an evil of religion and it is wrong.

If a religious community wants to impose certain values on others, it needs to provide valid reasoning outside it's own belief system as to why this is appropriate or beneficial. The value that murder and slavery should not be allowed is found quite reasonable by non religious groups and society accepts them on these grounds. But a teaching based solely on the text from your holy books should be heeded by those who hold to it, and not forced on those who don't.

You know, modern science ought to be very grateful for the existence of religion. I hear a lot of garbage about how the Medieval Christian church suppressed and inhibited scientific progress during the first millennium. Garbage, because in fact the early Catholic Church was the mechanism by which writings were preserved and knowledge transmitted. It funded scientific work through grants. It provided the infrastructure and stability to permit such work to continue. Much is made of later conflicts between Church dogma and the discoveries by men like Galileo, but those incidents by no means tell the story of the true relationship between the Church and science prior to that time. Yes, in the Renaissance there was a lot of friction between secular factions and the Church, but that's a far more complex issue than an oversimplified God vs. learning thing.

On this ground I refuse to do so. The structure the church provided is faulty. It funded ideas as long as it didn't contradict doctrine. It wasn't until after breaking free of these chains did Science experience it's explosion. I will not thank the religion for that. Any contributors to scientific understanding in and under the church can get thanks, but not religion itself. Just as much, while I will not be grateful to astrology, I am glad that astrologers meticulously mapped the heavens, but this doesn't suddenly make superstitions okay or even beneficial.

As I stated before, religious doctrine sets itself as the end of knowledge not as a structure for it. The bigger the dogma, the less exploration can take place. Certainly some learning can be achieved under religion but it's always stifled by the blockades that dogma places.

ArchAngel wrote:Certainly some. But not all. I'm not sure if we could accurately quantify this as "most," but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say that most mean well, even if there is some self-validation going on, too.

Maybe I'm more jaded than you are, and maybe that's why I'm more skeptical about the motives behind the billboard. What I've found over the years is that when people want to share their belief with you and they honestly mean well, they tend to be very considerate, diplomatic and courteous. They offer to share what they believe with you and don't push. On the other hand, when people are pushy, abrasive or insulting, it's usually because their motives are self validation.

People who mean well are empathic, because their focus is on you, the listener. They want you to enjoy the perspective they have. People who are looking for validation are thinking of themselves and their own needs, and what they want is to be seen as right, and they don't really care how you feel about it.

I've observed this among religious as well as non-religious people. I've seen it on religious topics as well as non-religious ones.

Now, of those two, which does the billboard fall into?

Earlier you said it was more likely they were just being somewhat clueless rather than malicious. I say neither. People with the need to self-validate aren't being malicious or even necessarily stupid. They're blinded by their need, and would probably be genuinely surprised that someone would take issue with their approach.

ArchAngel wrote:I never liked the Darwin fish. Nor did I like the Jesus fish eating the Darwin Fish. The only play on the icthus I liked was one that said "Sushi."

I could go for some sushi about now...

But yeah same with the Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish. It's all trolling and not the least bit constructive.

ArchAngel wrote: What statistically impossible event needs to take place for someone to not believe in a God?

We talked about it before on the topic of abiogenesis.

ArchAngel wrote:I have yet to see this. People greatly admire men like Dawkins, and I among them, but certainly not to a level of a prophet. People like Dawkins for what he says, and not on who he is. He isn't the end-all for truth and I don't know one person who considers him as such. If Dawkins starts saying the British monarchy is a bunch of lizard people, his "followers" will start to be scantly found, not chanting the same.

I didn't say he was venerated to the level of a prophet. I said the level of trust people put in them was not unlike the way people see prophets. I see it all the time. Ever see an atheist question either of them? Now granted, it probably has more to do with these men saying what their followers want to hear. Even so, I've seen people throw a fit when someone criticizes them. I can direct you to a forum where all you have to do if you want to get your brains flamed out is criticize something Dawkins said.

ArchAngel wrote: There's a huge difference between a religious following and admiration for certain people. A religious following stops at the word of it's leaders, sacred text, etc. When the Bible or the Book of Mormon says something, you believe it. When the Pope says jump, the Catholics jump. Anything otherwise is exercising outside of religion. No atheistic figurehead or work is given this sort of power. Even the strongest advocates of Science know that Science can be wrong and that it doesn't know everything, which is why we keep studying and experimenting.

Well, maybe you don't give them that level of power...

ArchAngel wrote: The closest thing I can think of to an "atheist" religion is Scientology. No real deities, but certainly a rigorous belief system. I think you'll find most Atheists disdain this organization very much indeed.

Who doesn't?

ArchAngel wrote:Disbelief isn't an affirmative claim. Perhaps you are referring to Strong Atheism, which asserts that no gods or deities can or do exist, but that's certainly not encompassing of atheism. Even Dawkins doesn't hold to this brand. Atheism is the non-belief in a god or deity. Hardly an affirmative claim.

I didn't realize there were different flavors.

ArchAngel wrote:There will be no proof for you. The people who made is explained what they are trying to do, and TS and I already explained perfectly acceptable alternative explanations and motivations, but you don't accept any of these. I'm not even sure what you're looking for.

And those explanations are just as much speculation as mine, so what obligates me to accept them?

ArchAngel wrote: I think you'll find I intentionally excluded the term "rights" on the grounds that you don't recognize it and this discussion is growing too large to include this. I'm talking about peoples actions be restricted because an outside religious group finds them immoral. It's not enough to control the people inside it's own religious group, it seeks to control others as well. I find this as an evil of religion and it is wrong.

First of all, religion isn't the only source of opposition on that issue. People like to cast it as a religion vs. freedom argument because right now it's socially fashionable to do so. I've seen arguments come from non-religious sectors just as I've seen religious support for it.

Second, it isn't about control. It's just like arguments I've heard accusing Christians of opposing abortion out of some kind of desire to control women. People who try and use that argument ultimately undermine their own credibility because it demonstrates a willful lack of understanding of the point of view of those who they disagree with.

ArchAngel wrote: If a religious community wants to impose certain values on others, it needs to provide valid reasoning outside it's own belief system as to why this is appropriate or beneficial. The value that murder and slavery should not be allowed is found quite reasonable by non religious groups and society accepts them on these grounds. But a teaching based solely on the text from your holy books should be heeded by those who hold to it, and not forced on those who don't.

Inherent to this point is the "us vs. them" mentality that poisons the discussion. It's what suggest that people who adhere to a religion are somehow unable to think and act outside of that context. If you think that, then you're doing a disservice to the people you don't agree with.

ArchAngel wrote:On this ground I refuse to do so. The structure the church provided is faulty. It funded ideas as long as it didn't contradict doctrine. It wasn't until after breaking free of these chains did Science experience it's explosion. I will not thank the religion for that. Any contributors to scientific understanding in and under the church can get thanks, but not religion itself. Just as much, while I will not be grateful to astrology, I am glad that astrologers meticulously mapped the heavens, but this doesn't suddenly make superstitions okay or even beneficial.

So you're saying that, without the Christian Church, Medieval Europe would have been better off?

ArchAngel wrote: As I stated before, religious doctrine sets itself as the end of knowledge not as a structure for it. The bigger the dogma, the less exploration can take place. Certainly some learning can be achieved under religion but it's always stifled by the blockades that dogma places.

Always? You sure you want to go with that?

ArcticFox wrote:People who mean well are empathic, because their focus is on you, the listener. They want you to enjoy the perspective they have. People who are looking for validation are thinking of themselves and their own needs, and what they want is to be seen as right, and they don't really care how you feel about it.

The point of the billboards weren't to reach out to believers, but non-believers caught in the midst of believers. They are perfectly honest in that it wasn't designed to be sensitive to religious sensibilities; they don't care if they offended or not, but at the same time, the point wasn't to offend, but to reach out to atheists who feel caught in religion.

If the point was to offend religious people, I think there are more effective ways of doing it.

We talked about it before on the topic of abiogenesis.

I'll save this for our Evolution vs. ID debate, if we ever pick it back up.

Well, maybe you don't give them that level of power...

Nobody does. Maybe a couple, I don't know, but they are statistically insignificant.

And those explanations are just as much speculation as mine, so what obligates me to accept them?

Nothing obligates you to accept them outright. But on the other side, we showed the reasons they gave and gave plausible explanations supporting it. I don't think there really is any other "proof" we can provide.
Sure, it's plausible that they were just trolling, but I find it less probably they'd conduct this entire expensive exercise just to make fun of people. They certainly didn't spare any offense that would be given, and perhaps turned it up to get more publicity, but this appears to be an action with a reason behind it. Even these signs have a purpose other to just offend. But then, I see a very important purpose behind offending others.

First of all, religion isn't the only source of opposition on that issue. People like to cast it as a religion vs. freedom argument because right now it's socially fashionable to do so. I've seen arguments come from non-religious sectors just as I've seen religious support for it.

If it's not religion, it's usually a form of homophobia or fear of the unknown. I haven't seen one good argument yet, and this includes the ones I used to make.
Even your argument concerning forcing pastors and wedding coordinators/photographers/etc was grounded in religion.

Second, it isn't about control.

It isn't ABOUT control, but that's what's being used to espouse a particular viewpoint.

Inherent to this point is the "us vs. them" mentality that poisons the discussion. It's what suggest that people who adhere to a religion are somehow unable to think and act outside of that context. If you think that, then you're doing a disservice to the people you don't agree with.

No where in any of my text did I make that claim. I never have and I never will. In fact, I think it's great people can think outside of that context and I fully support that they do. What you misread was me encouraging that people do so.

So you're saying that, without the Christian Church, Medieval Europe would have been better off?

I don't know enough of Medieval history to really make this claim, but I certainly can see a lot of ills done by the church. Did the Catholic Church provide a essential stabilizing element during the period of factionalism following the fall of the roman empire? Perhaps. Are there Christian teachings that positively influenced society? Yes. Is there teachings that negatively influence society? Yes. Are these teachings always followed? No. Even if the catholic church provided an benefit in this time, do I say it's good organization? No. Strong theories point out that the Plague led way to the rise of the middle class and the end of Feudalism, but I wouldn't say a plague is a good thing.

If you wanted a straight answer from me, I'm leaning to no concerning the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe.

Always? You sure you want to go with that?

Always is overly strong for effect, as I probably can't comment on every single piece of dogma out there, or the infinite possibilities of dogma, but sure, I'll roll with it. Prove me wrong.

ArchAngel wrote:The point of the billboards weren't to reach out to believers, but non-believers caught in the midst of believers. They are perfectly honest in that it wasn't designed to be sensitive to religious sensibilities; they don't care if they offended or not, but at the same time, the point wasn't to offend, but to reach out to atheists who feel caught in religion.

It doesn't matter. It's not like the billboard contained some kind of captioned disclaimer to let people know who the sign was meant for. I refuse to accept the notion that this was a noble effort that "oops" got noticed by the wrong audience.

ArchAngel wrote: If the point was to offend religious people, I think there are more effective ways of doing it.

And maybe if those methods were employed they wouldn't have folks like Truthseeker and yourself coming to their defense. Kinda ingenious, actually.

ArchAngel wrote: Nobody does. Maybe a couple, I don't know, but they are statistically insignificant.

One would hope.

ArchAngel wrote:Nothing obligates you to accept them outright. But on the other side, we showed the reasons they gave and gave plausible explanations supporting it. I don't think there really is any other "proof" we can provide.

Of course not. This kind of discussion is always based on speculation and point of view. Why would you treat it as anything else?

ArchAngel wrote: Sure, it's plausible that they were just trolling, but I find it less probably they'd conduct this entire expensive exercise just to make fun of people. They certainly didn't spare any offense that would be given, and perhaps turned it up to get more publicity, but this appears to be an action with a reason behind it. Even these signs have a purpose other to just offend. But then, I see a very important purpose behind offending others.

Frankly, I see that sign as trolling, too... But it also may carry a secondary purpose (and this applies as well to the billboard we've been discussing) and that is to fortify those who already share that point of view. It's almost a way of reminding people that yes, there are others who share that belief. Whether that was a conscious motivation on the part of the people who put up those signs or not, it will still comfort people on their side of the debate.

Again, human nature.

ArchAngel wrote: If it's not religion, it's usually a form of homophobia or fear of the unknown. I haven't seen one good argument yet, and this includes the ones I used to make.
Even your argument concerning forcing pastors and wedding coordinators/photographers/etc was grounded in religion.

Actually, it was grounded in freedom. It's a matter of conscience, not religion.

ArchAngel wrote: It isn't ABOUT control, but that's what's being used to espouse a particular viewpoint.

I don't think I understand clearly what you mean. Are you saying the pro-life people are using control, or that the pro-choice people are using the accusation?

ArchAngel wrote:No where in any of my text did I make that claim. I never have and I never will. In fact, I think it's great people can think outside of that context and I fully support that they do. What you misread was me encouraging that people do so.

I have no patience for people who won't think for themselves, whether they're religious or not. The problem is that the accusation is so embedded in arguments in debates like abortion or gay marriage (the accusation that opponents are just dogmatic lemmings) that on some level if you're going to introduce arguments at all concerning religious motivations you're going to have to either support it or make very clear you're avoiding it. That's just the state of the debate these days. It stinks, but there it is.

ArchAngel wrote:I don't know enough of Medieval history to really make this claim, but I certainly can see a lot of ills done by the church. Did the Catholic Church provide a essential stabilizing element during the period of factionalism following the fall of the roman empire? Perhaps. Are there Christian teachings that positively influenced society? Yes. Is there teachings that negatively influence society? Yes. Are these teachings always followed? No. Even if the catholic church provided an benefit in this time, do I say it's good organization? No. Strong theories point out that the Plague led way to the rise of the middle class and the end of Feudalism, but I wouldn't say a plague is a good thing.

If you wanted a straight answer from me, I'm leaning to no concerning the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe.

This would probably make for a good separate thread sometime. I've studied Medieval History quite a bit (For a time I had aspirations of becoming a Medieval History teacher) so I'm pretty comfortable with my perspective on this matter.

ArchAngel wrote: Always is overly strong for effect, as I probably can't comment on every single piece of dogma out there, or the infinite possibilities of dogma, but sure, I'll roll with it. Prove me wrong.

Want an example? Sure. Mormon dogma has outlawed the use of tobacco since the mid-1800s, at a time when the scientific community hadn't caught up with the nasty realities of tobacco's effects on the body. In what way did dogma inhibit science from making progress in that area?

Another? How about all those awesome stone age monuments and observatories that generated a greater understanding of astronomy and mathematics... all done for religious beliefs that yielded the fruit of scientific knowledge along the way... Dogma said various things about what starts were and what the heavens were like, but provided a framework to promote and accelerate scientific understanding...

... or even structures that had nothing to do with astronomy but did have to do with various aspects of religious worship, based in dogma, that resulted in improvements in engineering design, materials, methodology... Like the pyramids at Giza, the Cathedral at Notre Dame, the Hagia Sophia... even Assyrian and Sumerian ziggurats fit this example (I majored in Architecture, too.) because they were projects that were motivated and shaped by religious beliefs but had clear and measurable benefits in engineering, science and mathematics that might have occurred with out these religious motivations but would certainly have been later, if at all.

Want something other than science, engineering or math? Alrighty. How about the matrix organizational structure as sometimes used in corporations? Designed by the Knights Templar. Our modern banking system: Designed and implemented by the Knights Templar (which is part of why they were so wealthy). A religious organization with religious structure and religious themes advancing our culture and society in ways useful even to the present day... all promoted by religion and not inhibited by it.

ArcticFox wrote:It doesn't matter. It's not like the billboard contained some kind of captioned disclaimer to let people know who the sign was meant for. I refuse to accept the notion that this was a noble effort that "oops" got noticed by the wrong audience.

There's no "oops" about it. It's intended for a particular group of people, and they don't care if other people get offended. It isn't targeted for you. That's what I'm saying.

And maybe if those methods were employed they wouldn't have folks like Truthseeker and yourself coming to their defense. Kinda ingenious, actually.

According to your view of atheists, it really doesn't matter what they say, since people will be defending "atheism" no matter what. Self-validation, and that whole thing. You already stated you consider people like TS and myself as a small minority, why would plan to use us as defense?

Of course not. This kind of discussion is always based on speculation and point of view. Why would you treat it as anything else?

Well, you said none of what we gave is "proof." I'm saying that it's the best your going to get based on the nature of the discussion, just as you described.

Frankly, I see that sign as trolling, too... But it also may carry a secondary purpose (and this applies as well to the billboard we've been discussing) and that is to fortify those who already share that point of view. It's almost a way of reminding people that yes, there are others who share that belief. Whether that was a conscious motivation on the part of the people who put up those signs or not, it will still comfort people on their side of the debate.

Again, human nature.

Well, at least we're consistent.

Actually, it was grounded in freedom. It's a matter of conscience, not religion.

And how did they come to belief that homosexuality was wrong? Now, I do have issue with the idea of "forced service," and that a civil and free society should have no use of that. But as for this, I'm specifically referencing the discussion where you'd prefer to see homosexual marriage prohibited

I don't think I understand clearly what you mean. Are you saying the pro-life people are using control, or that the pro-choice people are using the accusation?

Pro-life people certainly would like to use control, and I find it laughable that the pro-choice people paint pro-lifers as if they just want to "control women." When I heard a professor say that in class, my head hit the desk. Literally. The whole "war on women" thing is a disgusting misrepresentation of the issues and does nothing to actually solve any real issues out there. But this is separate.

The problem is that the accusation is so embedded in arguments in debates like abortion or gay marriage (the accusation that opponents are just dogmatic lemmings) that on some level if you're going to introduce arguments at all concerning religious motivations you're going to have to either support it or make very clear you're avoiding it. That's just the state of the debate these days. It stinks, but there it is.

Fair enough. For the point of gay marriage, my claim is that the reason why most people are against is either for religious reasons(homosexuality is immoral/sin/etc), homophobia (which often turns out to be subverted homosexual tendencies), or just a fear of the unknown (gays are weird). After that, people do rationalize why they feel that way, but it begins from a point of personal insecurity with homosexuality or a religious precept that it is immoral.

I'll focus the most on religion, because that's the nature of the discussion. If the Bible never stated that homosexuality was wrong, or never even referenced it, would you still hold it as being wrong?

Want an example? Sure. Mormon dogma has outlawed the use of tobacco since the mid-1800s, at a time when the scientific community hadn't caught up with the nasty realities of tobacco's effects on the body. In what way did dogma inhibit science from making progress in that area?

Another? How about all those awesome stone age monuments and observatories that generated a greater understanding of astronomy and mathematics... all done for religious beliefs that yielded the fruit of scientific knowledge along the way... Dogma said various things about what starts were and what the heavens were like, but provided a framework to promote and accelerate scientific understanding...

I've already referenced this, as you well know. Even though

... or even structures that had nothing to do with astronomy but did have to do with various aspects of religious worship, based in dogma, that resulted in improvements in engineering design, materials, methodology... Like the pyramids at Giza, the Cathedral at Notre Dame, the Hagia Sophia... even Assyrian and Sumerian ziggurats fit this example (I majored in Architecture, too.) because they were projects that were motivated and shaped by religious beliefs but had clear and measurable benefits in engineering, science and mathematics that might have occurred with out these religious motivations but would certainly have been later, if at all.

Want something other than science, engineering or math? Alrighty. How about the matrix organizational structure as sometimes used in corporations? Designed by the Knights Templar. Our modern banking system: Designed and implemented by the Knights Templar (which is part of why they were so wealthy). A religious organization with religious structure and religious themes advancing our culture and society in ways useful even to the present day... all promoted by religion and not inhibited by it.[/quote][/quote]Well, for starters, I've never said nothing good can come from dogma, my claim was that it always stifles learning to some degree. Not only did I say that learning can occur under religion, but I even referenced some of the items you listed. But I'll go ahead and use what you listed to illustrate my point.

Tobacco: Mormon church prohibits it's use dogmatically. It wasn't, however, the Mormon church that proved it wasn't beneficial; it was scientists. Free thinking, not dogma. Mormons didn't conduct research to show what it does or how it's no good. We would have never learned of it's actual effects, or even "possible benefits" of nicotine. Actually, I know someone who had a rare case where they required nicotine for health reasons. Certainly a rare case, but he'd be untreated without the research that took place. If we expand this issue to marijuana, it becomes a little more interesting.

Astrology: Already mentioned this, and yes, one of only good things to come from Astrology is astronomical readings and recordings (the other is the Planets Suite by Holst). However, it wasn't until we broke free from the "dogma" of astrology did we actually really learn. It was a false understanding and only until after we broke free of it's constraints did astronomical understanding really take off. And I will say, much of ancient astrology when it came to the stars was about observing, and not a strict set of guidelines that needed to be followed. They observed and recorded. That's good, and their only good. The places were dogma came into play was their "interpretations," and I don't think you're going to defend astrological advice.

Architecture: It was built for beauty and function, and not by dogmatic guidelines. Imagine a dogma that said you can only build structures with a certain type of mortar. Would that really be beneficial? Or would that generally inhibit architectural understanding?

Banking: The Knights Templar banking was built on a need/situation, not on dogmatic guidelines. If dogmatic guidelines were in place saying they could only use money in the way it always has been, it would never been formed. It'd be a true shame.


My point is, it's free thinking and not dogma that brings about learning. Free thinking can still occur in religious societies or orders, but the religion can't just take credit for what the people did separate of it. Dogma might be "right" a couple times, but it's exploration and discovery that brings about learning and not a set of preconceptions that cannot be questioned or disobeyed.
I'm not saying all religious teachings are bad; they aren't. Some are very good. I'm saying the lack of curiosity and lack of exploration and the lack of questioning brought about my dogmatic thinking is very harmful to a society.

Maybe there's a dogma that people have to keep studying and learning. ...maybe that's my dogma?

ArchAngel wrote:There's no "oops" about it. It's intended for a particular group of people, and they don't care if other people get offended. It isn't targeted for you. That's what I'm saying.

Which is even worse, from a PR perspective. How would I, as an average person seeing the billboard, know who the targeted audience is? See, that's why I don't buy the noble purpose argument. They made *no* effort to communicate that, and that's assuming your theory is correct.

ArchAngel wrote:According to your view of atheists, it really doesn't matter what they say, since people will be defending "atheism" no matter what. Self-validation, and that whole thing. You already stated you consider people like TS and myself as a small minority, why would plan to use us as defense?

Why not? By refraining from saying more offensive things, they retain a certain level of wiggle room. "Who, us? Naaaaaahhhh we're not trying to be offensive!"

ArchAngel wrote:Well, you said none of what we gave is "proof." I'm saying that it's the best your going to get based on the nature of the discussion, just as you described.

Preachin' to the choir here, bro.

ArchAngel wrote:And how did they come to belief that homosexuality was wrong? Now, I do have issue with the idea of "forced service," and that a civil and free society should have no use of that. But as for this, I'm specifically referencing the discussion where you'd prefer to see homosexual marriage prohibited

Why isn't the "forced service" argument enough?

ArchAngel wrote:Pro-life people certainly would like to use control, and I find it laughable that the pro-choice people paint pro-lifers as if they just want to "control women." When I heard a professor say that in class, my head hit the desk. Literally. The whole "war on women" thing is a disgusting misrepresentation of the issues and does nothing to actually solve any real issues out there. But this is separate.

We're on the same page on this one, although I'd add the caveat that when we talk about using control in this context, we're talking about advocating laws that reflect our conscience. There's nothing wrong with that.

ArchAngel wrote:Fair enough. For the point of gay marriage, my claim is that the reason why most people are against is either for religious reasons(homosexuality is immoral/sin/etc), homophobia (which often turns out to be subverted homosexual tendencies), or just a fear of the unknown (gays are weird). After that, people do rationalize why they feel that way, but it begins from a point of personal insecurity with homosexuality or a religious precept that it is immoral.

I'll concede that most people are motivated by either religion or homophobia (as far as I know, anyway). Having said that, it doesn't mean there are no valid arguments what aren't motivated by those factors.

ArchAngel wrote: I'll focus the most on religion, because that's the nature of the discussion. If the Bible never stated that homosexuality was wrong, or never even referenced it, would you still hold it as being wrong?

Hard to say. I'll grant that the religious perspective is what first made me ask myself that question, but it's worth noting that I happen to be a member of a very pragmatic belief system and in most cases if you examine a rule carefully, you'll find some non-spiritual benefit to following it.

ArchAngel wrote:Well, for starters, I've never said nothing good can come from dogma, my claim was that it always stifles learning to some degree. Not only did I say that learning can occur under religion, but I even referenced some of the items you listed. But I'll go ahead and use what you listed to illustrate my point.

Tobacco: Mormon church prohibits it's use dogmatically. It wasn't, however, the Mormon church that proved it wasn't beneficial; it was scientists. Free thinking, not dogma. Mormons didn't conduct research to show what it does or how it's no good. We would have never learned of it's actual effects, or even "possible benefits" of nicotine. Actually, I know someone who had a rare case where they required nicotine for health reasons. Certainly a rare case, but he'd be untreated without the research that took place. If we expand this issue to marijuana, it becomes a little more interesting.

And yet, dogma didn't inhibit that research, did it?

ArchAngel wrote: Astrology: Already mentioned this, and yes, one of only good things to come from Astrology is astronomical readings and recordings (the other is the Planets Suite by Holst). However, it wasn't until we broke free from the "dogma" of astrology did we actually really learn. It was a false understanding and only until after we broke free of it's constraints did astronomical understanding really take off. And I will say, much of ancient astrology when it came to the stars was about observing, and not a strict set of guidelines that needed to be followed. They observed and recorded. That's good, and their only good. The places were dogma came into play was their "interpretations," and I don't think you're going to defend astrological advice.

But there you have it. Those guidelines you mentioned. The math that was developed to track these things. The methodology. As you said, the interpretation was off, but the mechanism for recording and studying them were solid. With that being the case, how can you say that wasn't learning? Does learning only count when it's done outside of a church?

ArchAngel wrote: Architecture: It was built for beauty and function, and not by dogmatic guidelines. Imagine a dogma that said you can only build structures with a certain type of mortar. Would that really be beneficial? Or would that generally inhibit architectural understanding?

The design properties of a gothic cathedral are actually very much influenced and even dictated by dogmatic concerns. The Notre Dame cathedral, for instance. Its footprint is that of a cross. Its lack of symmetry in the front facade is due to an effort to avoid appearing to be trying to achieve perfection, as only God can do that. The naive required certain design decisions in order to facilitate Catholic Mass. In order to meet these requirements some new types of construvction and engineering had to be developed.

ArchAngel wrote: Banking: The Knights Templar banking was built on a need/situation, not on dogmatic guidelines. If dogmatic guidelines were in place saying they could only use money in the way it always has been, it would never been formed. It'd be a true shame.

Again, dogma did not inhibit this.

ArchAngel wrote: My point is, it's free thinking and not dogma that brings about learning.

That may be your point, brother, but that isn't he same as saying " Certainly some learning can be achieved under religion but it's always stifled by the blockades that dogma places." Which you acknowledged was an overly string assertion, but then you did challenge me to prove you wrong...

ArchAngel wrote: Free thinking can still occur in religious societies or orders, but the religion can't just take credit for what the people did separate of it. Dogma might be "right" a couple times, but it's exploration and discovery that brings about learning and not a set of preconceptions that cannot be questioned or disobeyed.
I'm not saying all religious teachings are bad; they aren't. Some are very good. I'm saying the lack of curiosity and lack of exploration and the lack of questioning brought about my dogmatic thinking is very harmful to a society.

I would agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, which is another reason I'm a member of the religion I am. We're encouraged to question and explore, on issues both religious and secular.

ArchAngel wrote: Maybe there's a dogma that people have to keep studying and learning. ...maybe that's my dogma?

Nah, your dogma is Darwinism.

(Couldn't resist. )

ArcticFox wrote:Which is even worse, from a PR perspective. How would I, as an average person seeing the billboard, know who the targeted audience is? See, that's why I don't buy the noble purpose argument. They made *no* effort to communicate that, and that's assuming your theory is correct.

There'd be no point to. If anything, offending religious people would buy them publicity.
If it helps to clarify, I'm not saying it wasn't deliberately made offensive. I'm just saying wasn't done purely to offend (aka trolling).

Why not? By refraining from saying more offensive things, they retain a certain level of wiggle room. "Who, us? Naaaaaahhhh we're not trying to be offensive!"

When the president says that religion is just a huge con, and all religious leaders knows it's a lie and continues to swindle the population, I'm not so sure. He said this in the interview with Bill O'Reilly. Facepalm worthy, the both of them.

Why isn't the "forced service" argument enough?

No. Forced service should be address in the context of equal opportunity and other such thing. The "potentiality" of a violation of one right shouldn't be reason to completely deny another. And yes, I heard you say you don't recognize gay marriage as a right, but the only case it'll be an issue for you is if the refusal of service on sexual orientation is not recognized as a right. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to call both "rights."
And frankly, it's irrelevant. Regardless whether government accepts gay marriage or not, they certainly can perform the gay wedding ceremonies all they want and the should be able to invoke the same equality laws to get the services regardless.
But, and this I'm not sure of, I don't know if it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation. States have equal opportunity for employment, but that's not even guaranteed on the federal level. And that's just employment. If this is a non issue, do you still have an issue with gay marriage being allowed?
Ugh... maybe we should revive that old thread...

We're on the same page on this one, although I'd add the caveat that when we talk about using control in this context, we're talking about advocating laws that reflect our conscience. There's nothing wrong with that.

That caveat is not necessary, but I'm still going to disagree with it.
First, law is all about control. Anybody seeking to make a law is seeking to control. There's a lot of negative connotations with it, but some control is necessary. Controlling people to prevent murder, theft, etc. Important. I find it's important to understand this nature about laws to give a somber note to legislation. If you want to make another law, you want to add more control. Period.
And this is why I disagree with your caveat, well, at least what I'm inferring by how you worded it. I don't believe in legislating morality (of by conscience) because it's controlling others based on your beliefs. A law or control should be set in place only if necessary. Simply believing something is wrong isn't enough, you need to show how it protects life, rights, property, etc. Otherwise, it's best to leave that as a matter of discussion and not laws, and I should be forced to follow the conscience of another man.

I'll concede that most people are motivated by either religion or homophobia (as far as I know, anyway). Having said that, it doesn't mean there are no valid arguments what aren't motivated by those factors.

I have yet to see one, and I still don't find the "forced service" argument as valid.

Hard to say. I'll grant that the religious perspective is what first made me ask myself that question, but it's worth noting that I happen to be a member of a very pragmatic belief system and in most cases if you examine a rule carefully, you'll find some non-spiritual benefit to following it.

There are plenty who will argue that Mormonism is far from pragmatic. I certainly don't find it as such.

That may be your point, brother, but that isn't he same as saying " Certainly some learning can be achieved under religion but it's always stifled by the blockades that dogma places." Which you acknowledged was an overly string assertion, but then you did challenge me to prove you wrong...

Then perhaps you and I are reading two different things from the same sentence. From where I'm standing, it is. I'm saying that where dogma places a blockade of understanding, where it becomes the final say on a subject, learning becomes hampered, especially those who accept it. It's when someone is teaching that they hold the final answers and the search is over, that's when learning and the continuation of understanding is stifled.
When it doesn't stand in the way, learning can progress, but that starts requiring people wondering if religious teaching is wrong.

I would agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, which is another reason I'm a member of the religion I am. We're encouraged to question and explore, on issues both religious and secular.

You should check out atheism, that's all we do. jk.

Nah, your dogma is Darwinism.

Don't you dare question Evolutionism. The prophet Dawkins has spoken. We must condemn the Lamarckian infidels, for their way is the way of devolution. May their lies end in a catastrophic extinction event.