I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement.
"Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that?
I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass.
Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS
and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are
the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief
or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without
evaluation or due diligence.
> Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same
The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective.
> There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.
I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and
the implications of it from the very foundation.
> Can you please source that?
Atheist nations are more peaceful [1]
Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2]
Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3]
Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4]
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass.
Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong"
> crucial in the abolishment
Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church'
> Sources
Thank you.
I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article:
1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism
2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'.
Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism"
Norway - Norse Paganism
Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim
Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated
Brits - is there a question here?
3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion.
4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'
Also the first two are nations that are culturally and ethnically pretty homogeneous which would partially explain why there is little strife. If everyone subscribes to the same belief system and are ethnically similar then they are more like one big group as opposed to what we have in other countries where there is tension between groups.
In a comment above, I mentioned the nature of these references at being weak at best. There is an inherit problem with sourcing this kind of data and/or being the "front man" for it for obvious reasons.
The very nature of having a large group of people thinking the same way, executing their lives in a way pre-determined is a very bad thing. You can label it however you wish. An atheist is basically someone who has identified what they are not. When you talk about "pretty non-religious", you're talking about unlabelled or not completely adherent atheism. That's still a great thing. Nothing wrong with believing in some thing as long as someone else didn't tell you to.
The argument "It's good that a large group of people believe in a single ideology and adhere their life to it" will never have wings among intellectuals. Now, if you take that argument and apply it, you won't go far down the road when you'll invariably have to talk about religion. Do you excuse it? Or accept that it is one of those groups?
No disagreement here. Religion inherently forces an idea on a person. However, when a person determines the course of their life, which happens to align to a particular religion, it must be accepted whether by intellectual or not.
The problem with this conversation is that it dips in and out of respect of ones beliefs – which is a tricky platform to walk. If I say "No, people should throw away religious ideology", I will be called all sorts of names. If I say "I think X people should be enslaved", I will also be called all sorts of names.
Why is this true? Because with religion, there are several degrees of information you must process to get to a point where you see the correlation of religion and enslavement. Saying "X people should be enslaved" is only 1 degree. Why is it okay to tolerate something because it is more for our brain to evaluate? Why does it matter how many steps there are to the same result, or other negative result? It doesn't matter. If the end point meets slavery, brutality or death it is as/more severe than the act itself.
"Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that?
I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.