Prometheus

As a Buddhist who doesn't believe in god(s) that must mean that i have at least two religions then.

Language must be one of the clearest demarcations. Not only is it a natural barrier to understanding, but also influences how we actually think. I'm learning a second language for the first time in my life and's interesting how much more of a very different culture i am able to understand.

It is amazing how so many people are polarised by this topic: religion either did nothing but evil or it has never done any harm. Is it really that hard to see the truth is somewhere in the middle?

I've had far more problems with relationships across social strata than across culture. I kind of enjoy not being able to speak the same language as my in-laws

Ah, i see, good question. Hard to say. Buddhism helped me to understand quite a lot of things, but those same ideas can also be found smattered around Western culture too so i probably would have come across them anyway. Having all those ideas in one place certainly made it easier, but having it come from different cultures led to some misinterpretations. It's kind of like the saying, 'Anyone who would go to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.' If you think you need religion for guidance then you probably do need it - but not everyone does.

Would i what? Change my religion? Change all religions?

A fair few people have consistently been defending religion. My position is that we cannot usefully quantify the harm or good religion has done and we cannot rerun human history without religion, all that seems clear is that religion has done some good, done some bad and maybe it would all be the same without religion anyway. Going forward though we can change this. We can identify the negatives of religion and remove them, accentuate the good bits. This would mean religions would have to change: and this is the stumbling block. Religions are generally not willing to change, especially, it seems, those blinded by god. I'm a Buddhist myself, so i tend to think religion really could have a positive impact on humanity. But then I see the utter reluctance of religions to change and I think maybe we really would be better off without them.

Not quite. Morality is not god-given but that does not mean anything goes. It means we have to figure it out, come up with reasons. By god-given morality murder is wrong simply because god says so and that's it. Moral systems without god actually have to explore why murder is wrong. Classic literature like Crime and Punishment help explore the why. A good moral system should have some flexibility: the moment you think you have the god-given truth you stop thinking for yourself. Morality is the most difficult and yet most beautiful thing humans do. To reduce it to simple authoritarian obeyance is to insult the dignity of man. Obviously not true as cultures with God-morality still commit evil and cultures without god-morality have developed sophisticated moral systems.

I don't dispute this. My intention was to point out that the bible may once have been cutting edge morality in its part of the world. Toddlers require an authority figure to tell them right from wrong. They do not understand it but they learn to obey. As the child matures at some point they will learn why some things are considered right or wrong for themselves - through personal experience or perhaps literature or cinema. The problem is that religions have not been allowed to mature meaning we have institutions espousing morality only fit for toddlers. Then that would exclude many 'philosophies' that are generally considered religions.But even by your own definition atheism is not a religion: it has nothing to do with the supernatural. God does not exist is on a par with that invisible pink unicorn in my room does not exist - or does making that statement also make me religious? Why? Why are you obsessed with Nietzsche? He isn't the High Priest of Atheism you seem to think him to be. Like us living in the most peaceful age in all of human history? Following formula one racing has consequences, usually expensive ones - that doesn't make it a religion. Atheism can have consequences and not be a religion. I agree. Interesting that countries with the death penalty tend to be more religious.

There are Buddhist temples, priests, scripture and a unified idea how humans might exist. Atheism has none of these so by what definition are they both a religion? One so broad as to include football supporters i suspect - a useless definition. This is true, but why do you keep mentioning the Ubermensch. Atheists generally find this mindset as abhorrent as religious people. Things are always obvious when we don't back them up with data. It's impossible to quantify the good and harm religion has done and it's impossible to rerun the human 'experiment' without religion so we'll likely never be able to sensibly answer this question. We should not deny the harm religion has done though: else how can religion ever improve?

This implies morality is a static thing, fixed in our biology. I don't think this is true; it seems that morality has developed with civilisation. And if it does develop it would require people to drive it. Therefore the bible may not be merely borrow already existing morality, but may have developed once cutting edge morality - treating your slaves was once a revolutionary idea. Getting rid of slavery is the next step. I think what Raider means (at least what some Christians mean) when they say some god is the source of morality is that there must be some supreme being to declare precisely what is right or wrong, else morality cannot exist. Atheists can be moral within this framework so long they adhere to these declarations, regardless of whether they believe it came from on high. I find it a quite a dehumanising view: morality is no longer something humans bring to the universe, rather it is something imposed upon us and we're either right or wrong. Uninspiring and insipid.

Are you just a repository of data to sell onto interested parties or will you being running any algorithms? Are there any constraints upon who you sell the data to? Once the data is sold you own that data - not the participant? What do you mean by historical data? Data collected by past healthcare providers? Who do you think owns that data now? How do you intend to collect and collate that sort of data - it's most likely splattered across several clinics, ERs and dusty filing cabinets in research archives, written in different units, maybe even languages, etc... Where would they get diagnostics done - at your company or one of your participating 3rd parties? If i'm looking for data to train a machine learning algorithm (who will probably be the most likely to approach such a health data repository) you will need to provide quite a lot of assurances to the accuracy of the data as well the broached ethical concerns.

Some people will be comfortable with this, some not. You shouldn't worry about couples that are comfortable, just bear this in mind that you are not when choosing your partner. All that matters is that you are on the same wavelength as your partner on this issue.

I don't know anything about indigenous religions - are they the same as folk religion? Wikipedia has them down at 6.4% of the global population. My guess is that the beliefs of these groups vary quite widely. I don't fancy trying to research them though, have a hard enough time learning about the majors ones.

By percent of followers, for sure. I have no problems with pointing out the process for these, or any religions. But the arguments on this thread (and generally on this forum) still leave out ~50% of religions, which statements like 'this is religion in it's purest form' neglect.

It's it a very Abrahamic-centric (is that a word?) perspective, which is no surprise given we are on a predominantly Western site. But the assumption that most religions are similar enough to the Abrahamic faiths that all the same criticisms can be levelled at them, like Hank's arse, i think is incorrect. Take the Hindu concept of afterlife for instance: you will be reincarnated regardless of whether you believe in the religion or not. Some sects believe your actions in this life influence that reincarnation and some don't: but most Hindus believe that eventually all people will end up back as part of God (Atman) - this is regardless of the belief: hindu, muslim, atheist. You don't have to kiss Hank's arse to receive that 'benefit'. So that particular criticism can't be levelled at Hinduism. And so on for Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto... All i'm saying is that the Abrahamic faiths aren't the only religions, and most other religions are different enough that the particular criticisms in Hank's arse video aren't applicable to them. I think it's relevant because when asked how to turn a believer, quite what they believe in is pertinent.

It's a good clip, but is only applicable to about 3 world religions. Even 'theistic' religions like Hinduism shouldn't be lumped together for this kind of criticism - it deserves another kind criticism.

Try tabletop role-playing games - as a player first then moving onto a game master. Constantly narrating events, improvising scenarios and speaking in front of a group all make for good fun and practice.

Let me check i have this right. The first column is risk of contracting measles in 2000 - how is this calculated, is it how many get measles per 1000, because one country had 200 and that sounds an awful lot. The second column is the percent change in measles vaccination uptake between 2000 and 2015. The third column is the change in risk of contracting measles between 2000 and 2015. It's a strange way of looking at relationships. Exactly what hypothesis do you want to test - there may be a easier way of looking at the data.

Damn, i just got owned.

It happens, thanks for taking the time to look back, something i can learn. I guess our difference is that i believe this ability to discriminate is something humans have developed, whereas you believe humans were given the ability to discriminate? Quite aside from issues regarding the lack of evidence of a god i find the former far more appealing too. Morality is something humans do rather than something to follow: it is creation rather than instruction.

This is exactly like a couple of Star Trek ultra fans arguing over some piece of archaic lore while everyone else rolls their eyes wondering how people can miss the point so spectacularly. I mean, damn, they're good TV shows but why do some people have to spoil it by taking it too seriously?

Morals being written in the hearts of men (as according to Romans) and the knowledge of good and evil (aka morals) being the result of eating the forbidden fruit (according to Genesis). Unless you want to say after the fruit was eaten then knowledge of good and evil was written in the hearts of men - you can make up anything you want. But this whole line if discussion just highlights the point that there can be no sensible discussion when taking the bible literally.

I am a human being and collectively we have decided certain actions are immoral for humans. We choose to hold ourselves to higher standards. That is all. In Genesis 2:17 God commands 'but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,' In Genesis 3.5 the snake tells us "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Seems God and the snake are both in agreement that knowledge of good and evil will come from eating the forbidden fruit. Romans 2:15 states 'They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,' Seems to talk about laws not morals - but maybe things got lost from original translations? Even if we take it to mean morals we just have yet another contradiction and all the more reason to stop taking this book so seriously. Some do, some have to be shown why it is wrong, and others never seem to get it. Such variation is natural in a species. The difference in humans is that we have methods to instill empathy into others and so it is possible to show people why we deem certain things as immoral. For some issues (e.g. euthanasia) we're still still trying to work it out.

Not sure i understand your data. What are the values of? Are you able to post at least some of the data here so we can have a look.