Happy Dawkins Day!

Geomy

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks for the support Geomy but water off a duck's back.

Small correction though, not "these scientists" in a general sense, only scientists that are politically active in the war against religion. Quite hilarious to see the ranting when St. Richard is questioned, a bit like a cult really. One would almost believe Atheism to be a religion :rolleyes:

Lol I like reading the posts here,some people get so worked up its funny at times.

There's lots of good posters and funny quotes etc

What I seem to see is some sad people either defending atheism or complaining about religion :S

When they see its water off a ducks back they try the good old "gibberish crap"
or you're delusional.

I'm neither atheist or religious I don't sit on the fence either...

I'm just new to all this and find the A+A site interesting,and see some people base their Atheism or Agnosticism on intellect, then are emotionally charged
and they come out with the smart ass approach...

I prefer the posters who post using their intellect its the posts based on emotion who I'd be wary off....

That's when the existence of a HP,spirits,or consciousness is being discussed...

It seems acceptable when people are emotionally charged angry sad or disgusted about the crimes of the church or strident religion,but when the discussion gets personal over Spirituality or afterlife etc that's when I'm glad I'm not getting worked over it all

Because if things like that affected me I'd seek some outside help :S

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Certainly not the ranting part:)

Anyway, in the spirit of the upcoming forgiveness themed weekend, I will raise a glass to Richard tonight, the greatest friend anyone with even a smidgen of spirituality could ask for. Long may he rant.

Le sigh.

Half of us have never so much as read a Dawkins book. We're just pointing out how ridiculous you're being in an attempt to criticise someone while claiming that you're somehow not the one suffering a huge confirmation bias.

Oh, and Geomy, you should probably name some names and back them up with example posts if you expect your "SOME posters lol" schtick to avoid jaded scoffs.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

Le sigh.

Half of us have never so much as read a Dawkins book. We're just pointing out how ridiculous you're being in an attempt to criticise someone while claiming that you're somehow not the one suffering a huge confirmation bias.

Oh, and Geomy, you should probably name some names and back them up with example posts if you expect your "SOME posters lol" schtick to avoid jaded scoffs.

Ah sure maybe my claims are in me head and suffering from delusions...

I'm sorry if I offended anyone,ill take it back so

darjeeling

nagirrac wrote: »

So, you accept that Dawkins "borrowed" the phrase "selfish gene" (Hamilton was the first to use it in the literature), but your argument is as he used it in a differnet context to Hamilton, then that is OK. Utter rubbish, contradicted by Dawkins himself. Regarding the two meanings of "selfish gene", you may be interested in what Dawkins himself has to say on the subject, where ironically he rails at someone for the same offense I am pointed out he is guilty of.

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/mol-evol/1993-March/000781.html

Dawkins: "If I am right in my view of life, they (the two meanings) will eventually collapse into the same meaning". Why would they collapse into the same meaning, unless Hamilton's ideas and Dawkins' ideas are the same? Of course they are the same, Dawkin's entire book The Selfish Gene is based on Hamilton's lifetime of work, and the work of others. In terms of original work, Hamilton is an absolute giant in the field of evolutionary Biology and Dawkins is a nobody. Dawkins should be credited quite righly for popularizing the science and for his excellent writing in a style that non -scientists can understand.

There is absolutely no issue with Dawkins writing a popular science book based on the work of others, lots of writers do the same. He should have acknowledged that the phrase "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene came from Hamilton. His introduction would have been a good place for this. The fact that he allowed the myth of the "selfish gene theory of Dawkins" to go unchallenged for 30+ years is regretable.

Whether Hamilton objected or not, whether they were friends or colleagues or not, whether Hamilton is alive or dead, is all irrelevant.

Let's not start chucking around phrases like 'utter rubbish'.

Now you introduce a new source in which Dawkins says that there are two meanings of 'selfish gene' that will collapse into one. If you read what he is saying, you will see that he is talking about 1) all genes, which ultimately act 'selfishly' and 2) selfish genetic elements which do not affect the phenotype, the existence of which may first have been proposed by Dawkins. Neither meaning corresponds to Hamilton's 1971 use which clearly refers to 3) a gene for selfish behaviour - a different concept, not 'context'.

Of course Dawkins drew on Hamilton's work and his ideas about the gene being the target of natural selection. This is all well known. It's just that the blog you quoted misunderstands what Hamilton meant in his 1971 paper. You further interpreted this misinterpretation as evidence of plagiarism.

I don't really see why this is relevant anyway. You say it's the ideas that Dawkins expounds that you don't like, calling them 'illogical, inaccurate and dangerous'. Yet you also say that he stole the ideas from someone else whose work you are happy to praise. To what and/or whom are you objecting?

nagirrac

darjeeling wrote: »

Let's not start chucking around phrases like 'utter rubbish'.

Now you introduce a new source in which Dawkins says that there are two meanings of 'selfish gene' that will collapse into one. If you read what he is saying, you will see that he is talking about 1) all genes, which ultimately act 'selfishly' and 2) selfish genetic elements which do not affect the phenotype, the existence of which may first have been proposed by Dawkins. Neither meaning corresponds to Hamilton's 1971 use which clearly refers to 3) a gene for selfish behaviour - a different concept, not 'context'.

Of course Dawkins drew on Hamilton's work and his ideas about the gene being the target of natural selection. This is all well known. It's just that the blog you quoted misunderstands what Hamilton meant in his 1971 paper. You further interpreted this misinterpretation as evidence of plagiarism.

I don't really see why this is relevant anyway. You say it's the ideas that Dawkins expounds that you don't like, calling them 'illogical, inaccurate and dangerous'. Yet you also say that he stole the ideas from someone else whose work you are happy to praise. To what and/or whom are you objecting?

Apologies for the rubbish comment, clearly OTT and unwarranted.

When I refer to Dawkins' ideas as illogical, inaccurate and dangerous I am referring to his "God Delusion" related work and not his biology. Should have made that clearer.

In the source I provided, Dawkins clearly says that the meaning of genes which act "selfishly", your #1 above, should be attributed to Williams and Hamilton as the inventors. The point remains that the phrase "selfish gene" was first used by Hamilton and should have been acknowledged. Plagerism includes using someone else's language, in particular when it is a fairly novel phrase. The fact there were later different meanings used for the phrase "selfish gene" is hardly that relevant given that Dawkins' book is largely based on Hamilton's overall work.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

When I refer to Dawkins' ideas as illogical, inaccurate and dangerous I am referring to his "God Delusion" related work and not his biology. Should have made that clearer.

Yes I know.
Still waiting for this:

nagirrac wrote: »

I actually agree regarding many organised religions, but replacing one set of illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas with a set that is even more illogical, inaccurate and dangerous is my humble opinion not a good thing for society in the long run.

I will have to come back to this but will be happy to share my opinions later.

The point remains that the phrase "selfish gene" was first used by Hamilton and should have been acknowledged. Plagerism includes using someone else's language, in particular when it is a fairly novel phrase. The fact there were later different meanings used for the phrase "selfish gene" is hardly that relevant given that Dawkins' book is largely based on Hamilton's overall work.

What a load of complete and utter bollocks.
Hamilton has copyrighted the phrase and no-one else can ever use it?
All science owes a debt to the work of those who went before.

Bernard of Chartres used to say that we [the Moderns] are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants [the Ancients], and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants. - Isaac Newton

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

I'm neither atheist or religious I don't sit on the fence either...

Well either you believe in one or more gods, or zero gods, you can't be neither (and yeah the feckin' agnostics really need to get off the fence :pac: )

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

...........
In the source I provided, Dawkins clearly says that the meaning of genes which act "selfishly", your #1 above, should be attributed to Williams and Hamilton as the inventors. The point remains that the phrase "selfish gene" was first used by Hamilton and should have been acknowledged. Plagerism includes using someone else's language, in particular when it is a fairly novel phrase. The fact there were later different meanings used for the phrase "selfish gene" is hardly that relevant given that Dawkins' book is largely based on Hamilton's overall work.

I'd tell you to stop digging, but really its too late at this stage.

Galvasean

Pride, definitely my favourite sin...

Sarky

Galvasean wrote: »

Pride, definitely my favourite sin...

I'm a fan of all seven, really.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

I'm a fan of all seven, really.

You're not serious are you

Maybe all 7 are a fan of you

nagirrac

OK, I will drop the issue of the selfish gene myth as I am clearly wasting my time.. and yes, sarky I admit to somewhat of a confirmation bias as it is Dawkins, but everyone suffers somewhat from confirmation bias. For example if this same discusssion were about say Francis Collins who is an evangelical Christian, would posters on here be as understanding?

I do think many posters are missing the central point. The issue is not that Dawkins did not cite those who actually did the work (he did), the issue is that 1) the very unique phrase "selfish gene" and 2) the idea of the selfish gene came from 1) Hamilton and 2)Hamilton and Williams, and Dawkins could have been more preactive in acknowledging this rather than allow the myth of the Dawkins' selfish gene theory to exist for 37 years.

I'lll move on to Dawkins' ideas being illogical, inaccurate and dangerous.

darjeeling

nagirrac wrote: »

OK, I will drop the issue of the selfish gene myth as I am clearly wasting my time.. and yes, sarky I admit to somewhat of a confirmation bias as it is Dawkins, but everyone suffers somewhat from confirmation bias. For example if this same discusssion were about say Francis Collins who is an evangelical Christian, would posters on here be as understanding?

I do think many posters are missing the central point. The issue is not that Dawkins did not cite those who actually did the work (he did), the issue is that 1) the very unique phrase "selfish gene" and 2) the idea of the selfish gene came from 1) Hamilton and 2)Hamilton and Williams, and Dawkins could have been more preactive in acknowledging this rather than allow the myth of the Dawkins' selfish gene theory to exist for 37 years.

Sorry, you can't really get away with saying you're going to drop it and then not dropping it!

You say that Dawkins has claimed credit for 37 years for originating the idea of the selfish gene, yet in justification you posted something Dawkins put out 20 years ago on the internet in which he says

Richard Dawkins, 1993 wrote:

'The irony is that, whereas it could certainly be argued that G.C.Williams and W.D.Hamilton invented Selfish-Gene-A [i.e. all genes are selfish], I do not think it can be doubted that I WAS the first to suggest the hypothesis now called Selfish DNA!!' (link)

Just take the book for what it is - a popular but still scientifically rigorous synthesis and explication of the ideas of neo-Darwinian biology. There is no plagiarism there, as Dawkins cites all the work on which he draws. And if Hamilton, the main person your criminologist blogger thinks was plagiarised, was happy to endorse the book, I think that says it all.

nagirrac

Illogical Dawkins

This is the easiest one. Dawkins is just a poor Philosopher in the God Delusion. He inserts science into the "Is there a God" question, where science does not belong. Logically, we simply cannot speak in scientific terms about the question as there is no scientific evidence on either side of the argument. Yes, there is science to dismiss certain myths in certain religious texts, but science has nothing to do with the central question of "Is there a God", and this is where Dawkins is in error. In this he does science a disfavor and in my view discredits science. Science should quite rightly resist all attempts by religions to insert themselves into science, but likewise science should resist the temptation of inserting itself into religion.

Inaccurate Dawkins

This one is also easy. A central theme of the God Delsuion is that human conflict is largely due to religion. In his preface he even uses the Northern Ireland "troubles" as an example. This is absolute garbage, the vast majority of wars have an economic basis or are ethnic. Yes, there have been religious wars (the Crusades for example) but they are in a relatively small minority. The Northern Ireland troubles was not a religious war, it was an ethnic war between descendents of Scottish settlers who are loyal to their British heritage and the descendents of the indigenous Irish who are ambivalent at best about their loyalty. The troubles stemmed from the semi-apartheid state set up by one ethnic group over another.

Dawkins highlights the human misery caused by religion, yet never really explores the human misery in states that either abandoned religion or outlawed religion. Why were large numbers of people in states that had abandoned religion so willing to slaughter so many of their fellow citizens? Is the fact that belief in God was abandoned a significant factor? It is a question that needed serious contemplation, and Dawkins fails to persue it as it does not fit with his argument.

Dangerous Dawkins

This is the most difficult argument but ultimately perhaps the most important. Humans are a somewhat unique species in terms of being eusocial i.e. the highest level of social organization where the group is more important than the individual. There are very few species like us in this regard, ants, bees, wasps, a few species of beetles and to my knowledge no other mammal that is clearly eusocial. The benefits of eusociality are not hard to spot, ants dominate the insect world and humans dominate the mammal world. However, there is always the conflict between the selfish needs of the individual and the altruistic needs of the group.

Unlike ants, our eusocial behavior appears to be based on intellect and free will (E.O. Wilson). Although it is controversial and Dawkins vehemently disagrees with Wilson on this, the evolution of humanity as we know it seems to derive from our willingness to put the needs of the group before the needs of the individual. Some form of religious belief seems to have been part of this altruism since very early in human history. The history of humans in my opinion is the tension between the primal needs of the individual (greed) and the altruistic needs of the group (selflessness), and our survival is largely due to the latter winning over the former. Dawkins style philosophy is in my view a dangerous one in this context. Human evolution over the past several millenia, again in my opinion, has little to do with gene-centric evolution and all to do with group evolution. The evidence I see all around me is we are moving away from our group altruistic model and back to an individual greed based model, and I cannot see that as being good for humanity in the long run.

darjeeling

I'm not uncritical of Dawkins, though my reservations are pragmatic rather than owing to any difference in belief.

I think someone who has the job of 'Professor for the Public Understanding of Science' should be out telling people that science is important, interesting, and for everyone. Science was for long cast by the UK media as the preserve of funny little people in lab coats doing obscure and ultimately irrelevant things. This has only really shifted in the last decade or so, to the point that a rounded view of the world is now seen to require an appreciation of science. However, while science remains an unpopular A-level and degree subject and very few politicians have science backgrounds, the need for science advocacy remains.

I think that instead of promoting science for itself, Dawkins too often used science, particularly evolution, as a weapon to attack religion. There is a need to keep religion in check so that it doesn't intrude where people do not want it. However, unlike here, most of the battles to push back religion in the UK had been won before Dawkins took up the cudgels. In going after religion, Dawkins has been a divisive figure, and has reinforced the idea that science, especially evolution, is inherently atheistic. I would have preferred to see him focus his message on science and not on atheism, more in the manner of David Attenborough.

nagirrac

Excellent post darjeeling. Science is too important to tie it to beliefs or use it in arguments regarding beliefs. Science is the study of nature and let it take us wherever it takes us.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Illogical Dawkins

This is the easiest one. Dawkins is just a poor Philosopher in the God Delusion. He inserts science into the "Is there a God" question, where science does not belong. Logically, we simply cannot speak in scientific terms about the question as there is no scientific evidence on either side of the argument. Yes, there is science to dismiss certain myths in certain religious texts, but science has nothing to do with the central question of "Is there a God", and this is where Dawkins is in error. In this he does science a disfavor and in my view discredits science.

I haven't read TGD so can't comment on this.
However science can and should have something to say about irrationality.

Science should quite rightly resist all attempts by religions to insert themselves into science, but likewise science should resist the temptation of inserting itself into religion.

Scientists and skeptics should point out and confront irrationalism wherever they find it. Religion is the prime example of irrationality. It is the opposite of science to assert without evidence (and indeed to strongly discourage questioning the lack of evidence.)

Inaccurate Dawkins

This one is also easy. A central theme of the God Delsuion is that human conflict is largely due to religion. In his preface he even uses the Northern Ireland "troubles" as an example. This is absolute garbage, the vast majority of wars have an economic basis or are ethnic. Yes, there have been religious wars (the Crusades for example) but they are in a relatively small minority. The Northern Ireland troubles was not a religious war, it was an ethnic war between descendents of Scottish settlers who are loyal to their British heritage and the descendents of the indigenous Irish who are ambivalent at best about their loyalty. The troubles stemmed from the semi-apartheid state set up by one ethnic group over another.

This is nonsense, religion had a huge part in perpetuating tribalism, highlighting difference and convincing each side of their supposed moral superiority.
The Normans eventually intermarried and became 'more Irish than the Irish themselves'.
Why did the Ulster Plantation settlers not do this? Religion.

Dawkins highlights the human misery caused by religion, yet never really explores the human misery in states that either abandoned religion or outlawed religion.

Yes Sweden is a den of misery I hear :rolleyes:
This is just the usual 'Stalin/Mao were atheists' nonsense given a new lick of paint.

Why were large numbers of people in states that had abandoned religion so willing to slaughter so many of their fellow citizens?

Why were people in stated which had NOT abandoned religion also so willing to slaughter so many of their fellow citizens?
At the risk of a Godwin, need I mention 'Gott mit uns' belt buckles? Or that most of the catholic clergy supported the Nazis because they were anti-communist and anti-Jew?
Humans are c*nts. Religion is an excellent means of organising people into behaving like even worse c*nts, but it's not the only one.

Is the fact that belief in God was abandoned a significant factor? It is a question that needed serious contemplation, and Dawkins fails to persue it as it does not fit with his argument.

So he should have gone on a diatribe about communism and fascism as well? Why on earth should he have. The subject of the book is religion not communism or fascism or any other means of controlling people and convincing them that unspeakable acts are virtuous.

Dangerous Dawkins

This is the most difficult argument but ultimately perhaps the most important. Humans are a somewhat unique species in terms of being eusocial i.e. the highest level of social organization where the group is more important than the individual. There are very few species like us in this regard, ants, bees, wasps, a few species of beetles and to my knowledge no other mammal that is clearly eusocial. The benefits of eusociality are not hard to spot, ants dominate the insect world and humans dominate the mammal world. However, there is always the conflict between the selfish needs of the individual and the altruistic needs of the group.

Unlike ants, our eusocial behavior appears to be based on intellect and free will (E.O. Wilson). Although it is controversial and Dawkins vehemently disagrees with Wilson on this, the evolution of humanity as we know it seems to derive from our willingness to put the needs of the group before the needs of the individual. Some form of religious belief seems to have been part of this altruism since very early in human history. The history of humans in my opinion is the tension between the primal needs of the individual (greed) and the altruistic needs of the group (selflessness), and our survival is largely due to the latter winning over the former.

Religion is far from altruistic. It exists primarily to perpetuate and grow its own power, wealth and influence, and to suppress other beliefs and schools of thought.

Dawkins style philosophy is in my view a dangerous one in this context. Human evolution over the past several millenia, again in my opinion, has little to do with gene-centric evolution and all to do with group evolution. The evidence I see all around me is we are moving away from our group altruistic model and back to an individual greed based model, and I cannot see that as being good for humanity in the long run.

Dawkins is no Ayn Rand. Scientists depend on the work of others and their work inspires, informs, contradicts or supports the work of others. You're nothing if not published i.e. your findings shared for the benefit of all.

People thinking for themselves rather than accepting unquestioningly, on pain of social ostracism at best, death at worst, the dogma of those in authority (and the divorce of religious authority from temporal authority that pertains in most of the world today is a very recent development) can only be a good thing.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Excellent post darjeeling. Science is too important to tie it to beliefs or use it in arguments regarding beliefs. Science is the study of nature and let it take us wherever it takes us.

Wherever it takes us, until it contradicts a commonly held religious dogma, then we have trouble. Like Galileo did. Like how some religionists vilify Darwin to this day.

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

Wherever it takes us, until it contradicts a commonly held religious dogma, then we have trouble. Like Galileo did. Like how some religionists vilify Darwin to this day.

Religion had more power back in Gailileo's day

Here in this country religion has as much say as the mouse in Mossy Lanes haggard

Delirium

Tell that to anyone trying to get their kids into schools that are allowed to discriminate on religious groups if they're over subscribed.

Geomy

koth wrote: »

Tell that to anyone trying to get their kids into schools that are allowed to discriminate on religious groups if they're over subscribed.

Am I think that's a different matter,were not discussing schools...

What would I want to tell anyone about the mouse in the haggard ?

The schools I went didn't discriminate,went to School in Shannon.

Both the primary schools and secondary schools in Shannon never discriminated...

Shannon being an industrial/airport town has a very mixed population always had...

Sorry I cant identity with schools like that.

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

Religion had more power back in Gailileo's day

Here in this country religion has as much say as the mouse in Mossy Lanes haggard

Tell that to a woman with cancer who needs an abortion so she can keep taking her chemo.

And don't you dare tell me that religion has no influence in this country when I'm forced to send my kids to a religious school. There is no choice.

Delirium

Geomy wrote: »

Am I think that's a different matter,were not discussing schools...

What would I want to tell anyone about the mouse in the haggard ?

The schools I went didn't discriminate,went to School in Shannon.

Both the primary schools and secondary schools in Shannon never discriminated...

Shannon being an industrial/airport town has a very mixed population always had...

Sorry I cant identity with schools like that.

That's lucky for you but it's not the experience of everyone else in the country. Anyways, I was just pointing out the error of saying religion has no influence in this country.

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

Tell that to a woman with cancer who needs an abortion so she can keep taking her chemo.

I don't know what's up with you throwing this at me,I'm talking about my own experience with religion...

I'm totally detached from religion,I don't think its fair of you telling me to tell people about the influence of the church or religion n personal situations or medical conditions...

Red tape, religion, and political decisions are at fault in this country

I don't talk religion outside of these forums much,and most of my friends are detached from religion..

I'm a bit of a hippy living in the country side,detached from pop culture....

So ill take back what I said about religion be of little influence in this country...

I'll change that to religion has little influence in my or social circles lives...

Thats awful about that woman going through chemo and not being able to do what she needs to do,was this on the papers or tv

Send me a link I'd love to read it,as it opens my eyes to my ignorance of the influence the religion has on this country.

Thanks

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

I don't know what's up with you throwing this at me,I'm talking about my own experience with religion...

Grand. But others will have had different experiences from you. And the law of the land and how it's applied still, like it or not, has a religious influence upon it.

I'm totally detached from religion

That's how I'd like to be easy if you're a bloke with no kids, not easy if you're a parent, very hard if you're pregnant when you don't want to be

I don't think its fair of you telling me to tell people about the influence of the church or religion n personal situations or medical conditions...

It's absolutely fair if you post seemingly to defend religion. If you have a huggy fluffy view of religion then I think it's only fair to point out that in reality for many people it's far from a good influence on their lives.

Red tape, religion, and political decisions are at fault in this country

Politicians only make decisions favourable to religion because, for all the supposed liberalism in 21st century Ireland, they are still terrified of being labelled as 'anti-church'. Every session of the Dail begins with a christian prayer and our state broadcaster promotes catholic observance every day. Highly vocal tiny minorities like Youth Defence and the Iona Institute receive crazy amounts of media exposure.

Thats awful about that woman going through chemo and not being able to do what she needs to do,was this on the papers or tv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._B._and_C._v._Ireland

C had been undergoing chemotherapy for cancer for 3 years. She had wanted children, but advice from doctors indicated that a foetus could be harmed during any ongoing chemotherapy. The cancer went into remission and she unintentionally became pregnant. While consulting her general practitioner on the impact of the pregnancy on her health and life and tests for cancer on the foetus, she alleged that she received insufficient information due to the chilling effect of the Irish legal framework. She researched the issues on the internet alone. Because she was unsure about the risks, she decided to go to the UK for an abortion. She could not find a clinic for a medical abortion, since she was a non-resident and the need for a follow up, so she needed to wait a further 8 weeks for a surgical abortion. The abortion was incompletely performed. She suffered prolonged bleeding and infection, and alleged the doctors provided inadequate medical care, and her general practitioner failed to refer to the fact after subsequent visits that she was no longer visibly pregnant.

The Court held that "Article 8 cannot... be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion".[5] It nevertheless considered that Ireland had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the third applicant, C. because it was uncertain and unclear whether she could have access to abortion in a situation where she believed that her pregnancy was life threatening. Rather than information being unavailable, the problem was that there was nowhere C could go to secure a legally authoritative determination of what her rights were in her situation.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

This is nonsense, religion had a huge part in perpetuating tribalism, highlighting difference and convincing each side of their supposed moral superiority.Why did the Ulster Plantation settlers not do this? Religion.

Yes Sweden is a den of misery I hear :rolleyes:
This is just the usual 'Stalin/Mao were atheists' nonsense given a new lick of paint.


Why were people in stated which had NOT abandoned religion also so willing to slaughter so many of their fellow citizens?


Religion is far from altruistic. It exists primarily to perpetuate and grow its own power, wealth and influence, and to suppress other beliefs and schools of thought.

The Northern Ireland conflict was an ethnic conflict just as the War of Independence was an ethnic conflict. When debates in the English parliment in the mid 19th century referred to the indigenous Irish as animals and subhuman, was that because of religion? Was the same behavior towards all other vicitims of the British empire because of religion? When Northern Ireland Loyalists treated Narthern Ireland Nationalists as second class citizens it was because they regard all Irish, whether Northern or Southern, as a separate ethnic group, and that is still true of many loyalists today who hate to be called Irish.
Yes, religion has been responsible for some discrimination and some war, but this is dwarfed by ethnic conflict.
The Normans by the way who assimilated with the local population in Ireland were smart people. That's what smart people do, and behaving the opposite of smart is the primary reason for the fall of the British Empire.


67.5% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden at the last count. Clearly however religion is benign in Sweden. This in my view is a good thing, religion should be benign.

The statistics acording to a study done at the University of Hawaii for the 20th century are as follows:

State inflicted murders for countries that had outlawed religion: 150M
State inflicted murders for countries that did not outlaw religion: 0.5M
A bit of a difference. These numbers do not include those killed in wars between countries.

Religion as it was originally conceived and practiced was generally altruistic in nature. Powerful organized religions as you describe are a recent enough phenomena. Religions should not be allowed have any legal power in any modern day state.

I agree science and religion are separate. However, you cannot extend that to say the two are incompatible which seems to be what you are saying. Science was established by people with religious beliefs, the scientific method was developed by people with religious beliefs, there are thousands of scientists worldwide today who hold religious beliefs. The argument that religion is irrational does not hold up.

Absolam

nagirrac wrote: »

The statistics acording to a study done at the University of Hawaii for the 20th century are as follows:

State inflicted murders for countries that had outlawed religion: 150M
State inflicted murders for countries that did not outlaw religion: 0.5M
A bit of a difference. These numbers do not include those killed in wars between countries.

That sounds like an interesting study, is there a link fo it? I didn't know any countries had actually outlawed religion.

nagirrac

Absolam wrote: »

That sounds like an interesting study, is there a link fo it? I didn't know any countries had actually outlawed religion.

I will dig up the link and post it, but you never heard of the Soviet Union?

kksaints

Absolam wrote: »

That sounds like an interesting study, is there a link fo it? I didn't know any countries had actually outlawed religion.

Albania in the Cold war.

uncleoswald

nagirrac wrote: »

The statistics acording to a study done at the University of Hawaii for the 20th century are as follows:

State inflicted murders for countries that had outlawed religion: 150M
State inflicted murders for countries that did not outlaw religion: 0.5M
A bit of a difference. These numbers do not include those killed in wars between countries.

The only study I was able to find the remotely fitting your claims is this one: DEMOCIDE VERSUS GENOCIDE This the one you mean? If so you'd have to do some pretty amazing contortion to derive what you have from it. Apologies if it was another study.

But you'd have to be just a tad biased to look at those statistic of yours and not see they are ridiculous, that 94% of Nazi Germany was christian rubbishes it instantaneously.