teeming masses belief in God

Great Debates
1

[QUOTE=focusonz]
For the teeming masses, which we depend on to a large extent for survival, their belief, irregardless of how irrational it may seem to some, makes a large contribution to their rational thought.
[/QUOTE]

Demographic religious fervor index US
Fascist, Holy roller, God fearing, reverent, agnostic, non-Deist, Dibblist, atheist, anarchist
—^------------^------------^-------------^------------^---------^-------------^-------^---------^
–?----------125M-------90M---------37M--------1.4M----3.4M----------?------1.1M------?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, it’s a detriment to their rational thought; it makes them do foolish or evil things.
[/QUOTE]

Just how many of the teeming masses in the US do foolish or evil things?
How does one explain how the teeming masses, with diminished rational thought, could create the greatest economic force and bastion of freedom on the planet?
How does the teeming masses belief in God make a large contribution to their rational thought?

Anyone, Anyone.

2

[QUOTE=focusonz]

Just how many of the teeming masses in the US do foolish or evil things?

[/quote]

Judging from the prison population, quite a few.

I’m not sure what religious belief or unbelief have to do with economic growth. There are some company founders who are religious, there are some (like Bill Gates) who aren’t. As for innovation, I’ve worked in research and in companies whose inventions are driving our business, and the percentage of Christian fervent god believers is very low. Our fervent god belief has resulted in a high proportion of grad students in Engineering at least being foreign. Some may be fervent Hindus, but it isn’t apparent.

3

[QUOTE=focusonz]
Just how many of the teeming masses in the US do foolish or evil things?
How does one explain how the teeming masses, with diminished rational thought, could create the greatest economic force and bastion of freedom on the planet?
How does the teeming masses belief in God make a large contribution to their rational thought?
[/QUOTE]

As you’re a relative newcomer, let me offer some advice. Do not try to debate with Der Trihs, because it’s a total waste of time. He never posts anything other than insults. Many times people have challenged him to defend his insults with actual facts, and he has never (to my knowledge) made any attempt to do so.

Firstly, the prison populations in the USA is way less than one percent (though still higher than any other country). If going to prison indicates the committing of “foolish or evil things” then we conclude that almost no Americans do foolish or evil things. Secondly, most people in prison only used or sold small quantities of drugs–arguably foolish but certain not evil.

4

[QUOTE=focusonz]
Just how many of the teeming masses in the US do foolish or evil things?
[/QUOTE]

‘Foolish or evil things’ is a really big category. I see people do foolish things all the time. Since I think that religion is foolish, it’s not that hard.

Was it really the teeming masses that did it? Or a relatively small handful of smart and/or hardworking and/or greedy and/or downright bad people who did it?

I’m not really sure what you’re asking here. The more religious a person is, the more active a part that religion plays in thier day to day lives.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
As you’re a relative newcomer, let me offer some advice. Do not try to debate with Der Trihs, because it’s a total waste of time. He never posts anything other than insults. Many times people have challenged him to defend his insults with actual facts, and he has never (to my knowledge) made any attempt to do so.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

5

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
As you’re a relative newcomer, let me offer some advice. Do not try to debate with Der Trihs, because it’s a total waste of time. He never posts anything other than insults.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not correct. What is true about Der Trihs is that it is axiomatic with him that religion is 100% bad. Any attempt to argue him out of that position is, I’m pretty sure, futile. When talking about religion, he has nothing but what ITR champion would call “insults” for religion itself (and perhaps, by association, those who believe in or practice a religion). So that when I see a comment like the one quoted in the OP, it’s pretty much what I expect from him, and I shrug it off, saying to myself, "That’s Der Trihs for you.
As for the subject of the OP, I have no doubt that the teeming millions and the intellectual elite of the US do, at least occasionally, do foolish and/or evil things. I have no trouble believing that there are instances where their religion contributes to their doing foolish and evil things, and that there are instances where their religion discourages them from doing foolish or evil things that they might otherwise do. Beyond that, I hesitate to speculate.

6

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m not sure what religious belief or unbelief have to do with economic growth.
[/QUOTE]

Everything necessary to the creation of our economic system is related to Christianity. The theory of free markets and the individual right to choose arose in Christian societies, driven by Christian belief in individuality and equality. Governments that provided the conditions for a rapidly growing economy arose in Christian societies. It was the Puritans who first came up with the idea of formal education for everyone, a necessity for economic growth.

If you look at map in roughly 1850 it’s abundantly clear that there’s a tight correlation between religion and economy. Protestant nations were the wealthiest, then Catholic, then eastern Christianity, and then miscellaneous other. (In our time the correlation exists but is not as stark, because economic ideas have spread from their Christian birthplace to the rest of the world.)

7

[QUOTE=focusonz]
Just how many of the teeming masses in the US do foolish or evil things?
[/quote]
Vast numbers. Voting against marriage for gays, opposing stem cell research, denial of evolution, opposing abortion, hatred of homosexuals, End-Timesism, faith healing, sending money to televangelists, and on and on.

[QUOTE=focusonz]
How does one explain how the teeming masses, with diminished rational thought, could create the greatest economic force and bastion of freedom on the planet?
[/quote]
Ruthlessness, size, debt, and living off the past largely explain America’s economic power. And America’s freedoms, what there are of them, are also mostly a legacy of the past.

I post quite a bit more than insults, and I’ve defended my opinions with facts.

8

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

Firstly, the prison populations in the USA is way less than one percent (though still higher than any other country). If going to prison indicates the committing of “foolish or evil things” then we conclude that almost no Americans do foolish or evil things. Secondly, most people in prison only used or sold small quantities of drugs–arguably foolish but certain not evil.
[/QUOTE]

That’s still quite a few. Plus you have to count all the evil people out there who haven’t gotten caught yet. I agree that many drug prisoners are not evil - but they are foolish, at least in that they got caught.

Anyhow, if religion somehow kept people from doing foolish or evil things, you’d expect that our highly religious culture would have lower prison rates than the secular cultures in Europe.

9

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Everything necessary to the creation of our economic system is related to Christianity. The theory of free markets and the individual right to choose arose in Christian societies, driven by Christian belief in individuality and equality. Governments that provided the conditions for a rapidly growing economy arose in Christian societies. It was the Puritans who first came up with the idea of formal education for everyone, a necessity for economic growth.

If you look at map in roughly 1850 it’s abundantly clear that there’s a tight correlation between religion and economy. Protestant nations were the wealthiest, then Catholic, then eastern Christianity, and then miscellaneous other. (In our time the correlation exists but is not as stark, because economic ideas have spread from their Christian birthplace to the rest of the world.)
[/QUOTE]

Yup. The Romans never had an economy, or free trade. And when the Church ruled, in the Middle Ages, it was a capitalist paradise. Not to mention how the Christian anti-usury laws helped. Jews never participated in the economy either. (True, actually when we were kicked out because the king owed too much.)

Notice how the growth of the economy happened when the church relaxed its grip. And today the non-Christian nations seem to be doing alright.

Yeah, most of the Western economists happened to be Christian. But if Christianity leads to capitalism, how come it took so long?

10

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
It was the Puritans who first came up with the idea of formal education for everyone, a necessity for economic growth.
[/quote]
That seems pretty inaccurate. I cite you the existence of Seodang and Shuyuan, rather a way away in time from the existence of the Puritans and geographically so from Christianity at the time.

I would also ask of you your definition of a Christian - quite a few people who considered themselves Christians in the past were quite happy with slavery and the like, so i’m not entirely sure you can truly claim that the existence of schools were driven by the Christian notions of individuality and equality - unless you’re suggesting that slavery, sexism, and all those fun things can be incorporated acceptably into a Christian’s life?

11

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
As you’re a relative newcomer, let me offer some advice. Do not try to debate with Der Trihs, because it’s a total waste of time. He never posts anything other than insults. Many times people have challenged him to defend his insults with actual facts, and he has never (to my knowledge) made any attempt to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Since you are a long-standing member, let me remind you that personal attacks on other posters are really not appropriate in Great Debates.

This is particularly true in a situation where your claims bear a strong resemblance to a kettle describing the color and smoked surface of a pot. You both tend to argue by assertion and make sweeping claims that can only be supported by cherry-picked facts*. You would be better off simply allowing various posters to discover the debating tactics of other posters for themselves. A brief note to the OP that Der Trihs begins from an a priori assumption that all religion is always evil and that that assumption colors his arguments might have been OK, I guess, but what you posted looks dangerously like a personal attack.

  • Your claim regarding the Puritans inventing the idea of education for all looks silly in the light of Hasmonean Judea where the idea and effort had been put forth 1600 years earlier.
    Your attempt to cherry-pick the year 1850 to “show” that Protestantism is economically better than Catholicism which is economically superior to non-Christian religions ignores a lot of facts (in pre-unified German nations, Catholic Bavaria was wealthier than Protestant Hanover or the Protestant Prussian holding of Westphalia; Catholic Ireland’s poverty owed much to its suppression by Protestant England, Protestant Norway was a basket case with or without its domination by Protestant Sweden or Denmark, etc.) and ignores the fact that cherry picking a different date would “prove” that Islam or Confucianism or the Greek or Roman religions were, by far, the best beliefs to encourage wealth.
12

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
…, driven by Christian belief in individuality and equality.
[/QUOTE]

Beliefs in individuality and equality? Religions are all about conformity and subservience to a mythical being (or more accurately, the church leaders).

13

[QUOTE=Uzi]
Beliefs in individuality and equality? Religions are all about conformity and subservience to a mythical being (or more accurately, the church leaders).
[/QUOTE]
This is the sort of boilerplate non-reply of which Der Trihs gets so frequently accused that does nothing to carry forward any discussion.

Granted that the OP is not couched in terms that will foster a thoughtful discussion, it would still be nice to see some thoughtful replies.

::: sigh :::

14

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is the sort of boilerplate non-reply of which Der Trihs gets so frequently accused that does nothing to carry forward any discussion.
[/QUOTE]
“Boilerplate” to you. “Pointing out the elephant in the living room” to others. Far more often than not, Christianity has been used as a club to pound people into conformity and obedience. ITR champion’s claim that Christianity has some special “belief in individuality and equality” is ridiculous in a claim made about a religion notorious for persecuting heretics and unbelievers, and for inflicting tyranny and excusing bigotry.

If there’s boilerplate here, it’s ITR champion’s and others claims of Christianity’s and other religion’s virtues.

15

Oh, calm down. I said that was the claim of which other posters accused you, not the act of which you were guilty.

(There is an actual reply to your claim, but I’m not going to waste the time to make it if this thread is going to be one more thread of pro-religion/anti-religion bumpersticker posts (such as your reply).)

16

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is the sort of boilerplate non-reply of which Der Trihs gets so frequently accused that does nothing to carry forward any discussion.

Granted that the OP is not couched in terms that will foster a thoughtful discussion, it would still be nice to see some thoughtful replies.
[/QUOTE]

I did have a rather lengthy reply almost finished, but the wording wasn’t to my liking, nor was the argument I was putting forward answering the root of the issue as well as I wanted. I ended up deleting everything other than what I posted because of the nature of the OP and because I believe these arguments tend to fall upon deaf ears for the most part.

But I’ll try again just so you don’t lose your, uh, faith in me! hehe.

Religions are all about belief. In order to participate fully, you must believe. Believe what? What the people of a particular religion tell you is the truth. There is little room for individuality there. At the most a religion might allow discussions around the belief, but at the end of the day if you want to be part of a particular religion you will have to conform to the majority of beliefs in that particular belief system. It would be like joining an ice hockey team and bringing a soccer ball to the game. If you want to play soccer then you’d better join a soccer team instead.

In such a system there will always be the truth givers and the truth recievers. This creates a hierchy where those with the knowledge end up with more power than the average member. Those with the power tend to want to keep it and create barriers to entry of others who want it, too. Those with the power will always cater to others who increase their power, or can maintain it. So some people end up being more equal than others. In modern societies, this isn’t as apparent because we have more options, but in the past if you were in the flock you got fleeced and individuals who objected were cast out, burned at the stake, stoned, or subjected to any number of other nasty outcomes.

It comes down to why religions are created in the first place.

  1. Crazy people start them.
  2. People looking for power or money start them.

By crazy people I mean people who actually believe that god is talking to them. As god is omnipotent he could talk to everyone at once. There is no logic in a god only talking to only one person if he wants to get his message across, or expects us to act in a particular manner. Tell me directly and it is more likely that I’ll listen. This is obvious to anyone who wants to effectively manage people. Whole schools of management practices exist which essentially boil down to getting managers to just communicate face to face with their employees. It is impossible that an omniscient god doesn’t know this.

Which leaves us with the people who want power and money. eg. L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, etc. These people can also be crazy and believe that god is talking to them, but it is more likely that they are just in it for their own personal aggrandizement and profit. These sorts take startup/existing religions and use them for their own purposes. Think Oral Roberts (most likely in the crazy ranks, too), Peter Popoff, etc.

17

[QUOTE=Uzi]

Religions are all about belief. In order to participate fully, you must believe. Believe what? What the people of a particular religion tell you is the truth. There is little room for individuality there. At the most a religion might allow discussions around the belief, but at the end of the day if you want to be part of a particular religion you will have to conform to the majority of beliefs in that particular belief system.
[/quote]

Ever seen an intense debate between, say… 1000 Jews? Let me tell you… sit through a UAHC debate or five, and then tell me it’s all about conformity. :wink:

[QUOTE=Uzi]

In such a system there will always be the truth givers and the truth recievers.
[/quote]

Always? In every religion? Every sect of every religion? From my personal experience in Reform temples, I’ve never once seen a Rabbi who was assumed to be a “truth giver” as opposed to someone who’d studied a lot and was sharing his views. YMMV, of course.

[QUOTE=Uzi]

It comes down to why religions are created in the first place.

  1. Crazy people start them.

  2. People looking for power or money start them.
    [/quote]

  3. Ancient peoples who were trying to understand the world around them.

  4. Modern people who have ‘spiritual’ inclinations, but feel that they’re not in accord with any major world religion.

  5. People who honestly believe what they say, and wish to share their views with others.

-Finn, Gnostic Agnostic Atheist

18

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Ever seen an intense debate between, say… 1000 Jews? Let me tell you… sit through a UAHC debate or five, and then tell me it’s all about conformity. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

I made the caveat that in the modern world it is somewhat different because it has to be. And there are exceptions to pretty much everything. But I’m sure Moses, when he was stoning people who worked on the sabbath (or whatever), was up for a good debate with the stonees beforehand on what god’s will was, wasn’t he?

Ah, sorry, I should have included the ignorant in my ‘dissertation’.

The slighty crazy category. Missed that one, too.

We’re back to the genuinely crazies assuming you mean that they think they are having genuine conversations with a god(s) when they aren’t talking to others as to what they think god wants..

19

My bolding:

[QUOTE=focusonz]

How does one explain how the teeming masses, with diminished rational thought, could create the greatest economic force and bastion of freedom on the planet?

[/QUOTE]

Error - assuming facts not in evidence.

20

I had hoped for more cogent responses rather than knee-jerk reaction.
I apologize, For my post was not couched in terms that foster a thoughtful discussion.

Allow me to restate my question.

[QUOTE=focusonz]

Just how many of the teeming masses ( religious) in the US did foolish or evil things (which had a detrimental effect on the social and economic strength and stability of the US prior to the baby boomer age pre 1965)?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Vast numbers. Voting against
marriage for gays, Ongoing debate
opposing (embryonic) stem cell research, Bush 2001 regulations Ongoing debate
denial of evolution, Scopes 1925 Ongoing debate
opposing abortion, Roe v. Wade 1973 Ongoing debate
hatred of homosexuals,
End-Timesism (second coming of Christ),
faith healing (intercessory),
sending money to televangelists,
and on and on.
[/QUOTE]

I added the bolded and underline comments to Der Trihs list of foolish and evil things above and extropolating Der Trihs could also have included
Voting for Bush in 2000
Voting against Clinton in 1992
Voting for Reagan in 1984
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

It looks like to Der Trihs that voting against the liberal agenda is foolish or evil. I maintain that the foolishness and evil nature can only be determined within a historical perspective.

What I want to know is the proof that supporting an anti-Religious agenda “the liberal agenda” will be better for my children 50 years in the future as compared 50 years in the past.

I think not especially in light of:

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Ruthlessness,
size,
debt, and
living off the past
largely explain America’s economic power.

And America’s freedoms, what there are of them,
are also mostly a legacy of the past.
[/QUOTE]

Which are the characteristics of America post 1965. And, I conclude, arose from the Godless and drug stupefied nature of a vocal anti-Vietnam activist minority.

An inquiring mind wants to know.