Cute but silly. You didn't use any latin and you know as well as I do who originally got all hot and bothered about the taxonomy of logic.
So Ad Populum is not latin? You continue to enlighten me
Anyway you're the one trying to float appeal to the masses out there, not me.
Pat but unjustified. We know a lot about the mechanism of tobacco addiction. The idea that religion is some sort of psychic addiction is a largely untested hypothesis. Fun to chant, though.
Did you really just try to strawman me by claiming I made a woo claim about anything psychic? Yes you did! Good for you, you fit right in with the theists here.
Of course you will crawdad by claiming you meant psychic in the psychological sense, but don't worry I'm sure you will be awarded your strawman merit badge all the same.
Religion can do some of these things. Of course, it's quite possible to do them without religion. These are themes in the literature dating back to Voltaire. When was the last time you tested them against reality?
My whole life since I was a teen shows the reality is fine. Most people here show the reality is fine. I assume you are here because of that fact that there is a growing number of people willing to admit to atheism.
1. We have evidence based medicine now. Very few people walk around obsessing about death. Yet religion persists.
Did people ever walk around obsessing about death? WTF are you talking about?
But people do fear death and people do die in horrible pain. Everyone dies. Very few people want to. The only thing that changes is we have a lot more time to think about it once death darkens our door. Hence religion.
2. Personal responsibility has been a constant theme in at least some protestant sects since Martin Luther. Check out some 19th century theologians, to gauge the timeliness of your complaint.
I'm not complaining, I'm observing. Morality does not require religion, and I posit is impeded by it. Just as being handed a calculator impedes your ability to do long division, and more importantly you are obliged to take it on faith the calculator is giving you the correct answer.
3. TV/internet is the new opiate of the masses, don't you read Calvin and Hobbes?
Talk to me when the NBC Jihad starts. Until then I will simply observe no jihads or purges or crusades have been justified by TV. (tho it is definitely used as a propaganda tool of religion)
Religion does lots of things. Different religions even do different things. As mentioned earlier, I can't give you a complete list, because it falls into areas (social dynamics, identity, psychology, etc) that haven't been very well analyzed yet.
Yet you make morally certain claims.
Some of the obvious ones: fosters and creates conditions for various types of relationships; teaches various emotional processes (efficacy open to ordinary judgment), provides a tested moral framework etc.
Tested and failed. Ever had a gay friend beat up for that simple fact? I have.
Since I was talking about making distinctions based on judgment (a point which you, like so many others ignore) I didn't so much omit the violent ones as I did judge and choose the helpful ones. The Westboro folks aren't my co-religionists any more than the Jain are. It's an entirely different conception of God. I have no trouble distinguishing between sects on the basis of the practioner's acts, and hold mine to the same standard.
Yet you defend religion in broad terms, not just your own. If you made a case for your own I'd be interested to read it.
Allow me to translate from philosobable: Stawman. Paying attention to inner experience is not necessarily equivalent to disregarding the rules of objective evidence. Seriously, you just need to be clear about how conflicts get resolved.
Wow, you accuse of strawman while doing it. I didn't say that. You even quote it THEN mischaracterize it, lol. Brazen.
Moving on. Are you going to assert that inner experience is not subject to external manipulation? Because that was my point. When you become accustomed to faith as a valid mental process you do internalize the doctrine. It's unavoidable. Once you're on that path your ability to distinguish right from wrong is compromised by degrees. You may think you will never get past some magical line that you would somehow magically be able to tell when your 'inner experience' was telling you things that you would have previously considered abhorrent, and who knows, maybe you have that facility, tho I am not sure how it would work. What we do know is that most people do not have this facility. They believe, with certainty, whatever crap the religion they were indoctrinated told them.
Sometimes, you might. I leave construction of the hypothetical as an exercise to the reader.
I would have to go with evidence over impossible to prove promises as a model for social interaction. I can imagine exceptions but that's a long way from thinking that in general it's a good idea for religions in general to appeal to credulity.
In any event, the question of faith hasn't been raised by anyone but the atheists. In my view the important battle is to properly circumscribe its scope (or magisterium if you will, thanks JREF for the new vocab).
Of course why would a theist bring it up? If you're here at all you know the idea faith is not an error cause is something many people here are skeptical of.
Certainly I agree faith should be circumscribed. Then circumcised then castrated
Seriously I do recognize faith has been used to motivate people to good. But it's not required to do good. Faith has been used to motivate people to do evil, and that evil could not have been accomplished otherwise.
On reflection, I feel you may be bringing a personal perspective to this question that I don't yet understand. In any event ennobling faith over reason would seem to be an epistomological choice, so the use of the word "completely" appears a little reflexive.
No completely was used because you were
completely wrong
Allow me to remind you of your position:
The only possible equivalence between Co$ and e.g. liberal Presbyterians is in the area of epistomology.
(emphasis mine)
The very obvious common thread is faith. That's the common factor of religion.
More to the point, I have specifically argued that a denomination's attitude toward faith is the litmus test for reasonableness. I and many others would say that faith has to be subordinate in the areas where our best epistomological methods have produced results.
That's certainly a step, but why stop there?
I'll tell you why, because absent making faith a virtue, religion really has no legs. Even assuming a particular religion wasn't designed with social control in mind it's
way to tempting to abuse the power provided by the faith consumer. The promise of immortality or freedom from existential responsibility is the foot in the door. "I have the answers!" If you would say that any religion that goes beyond these (relatively) harmless sort of emotional sops then we might find room to agree. Though you won't like the fact I recognize them for what they are
But religions, all to often, don't stop there. Certainly there are socially 'polite' religions that do stop there. Really those aren't the main problem from a sociological perspective. From a human perspective although it does make me sad that people willingly befuddle and delude themselves but oh well. Even spoonfed morality
can be relatively benign, but jeepers it's SO susceptible to abuse.
These are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality.
