# Does religion create better or worse countries?



## Rand /pol/ (Aug 31, 2019)

The Philippines is roughly 86% Catholic Christian, has a poverty rate of 26% and a murder rate of 9.84 per 100,000 residents. Mexico is roughly 83% Catholic Christian, has a poverty rate of 40.5% and a murder rate of 25 per 100,000 residents. The Czech Republic is roughly 72% atheist, the lowest poverty rate in the EU and a murder rate of 1.0 per 100,000 residents. The "most religious" region in the US is the deep south states and border states, many of which are the poorest in the country while the least religious states are all in New England and the Pacific Northwest, the states that generally have the best HDIs, highest average incomes, lowest murder rates, etc. All this being said is there any argument for religion not being a total negative for almost every country?


----------



## The best and greatest (Sep 1, 2019)

I think that's the wrong question. Values that propagate economic success, social harmony, and individual well being make for better countries in general. It doesn't have to be religiously sourced although that's not uncommon. Of course it takes more than values to make a country but its not a bad starting point.


----------



## The Last Stand (Sep 1, 2019)

Take a look at the Middle East or colonial America and that'll answer your question. Or even Alabama.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Sep 1, 2019)

depends on the religion


----------



## Otis Boi (Sep 1, 2019)

People turn to relegion when times/ there life is roughest. You don't see rich people/trust fund kiddies who thank god for their wealth because it was handed to them by a tangible entity. Where as the poor much rather blame a abstract concepts ,God, for their problems. You can obeservese this in the balck community as they blame Whitey/White supremacy for their short comings even if 70% of it could be fixed by policing/gate-keeping their own community.

In short it is a symptom of a problem and not the direct outcome. 
Edit:fixed my drunken/grammar mishaps


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

> the country while the least religious states are all in New England and the Pacific Northwest


Are you just baiting for people to point out these places are also super white, Ronnie?


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Are you just baiting for people to point out these places are also super white, Ronnie?


>Americans
>white
lol nice one


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> >Americans
> >white
> lol nice one


Wait a second, Ron, that's white nationalist talk right there.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Sep 1, 2019)

>Pretending atheism isn't a belief system. 

Nice b8.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Sep 1, 2019)

Mexico, Philipines, and Czech Republic are completely different societies from different countries with very different problems. They'd need to have more than the religion in common to make an apt comparison. 

Say, the most religious country of Latin America is Paraguay and the less religious is Uruguay. Paraguay is only a little bit more violent than Uruguay and some stats give them the same level. They are also in similar level of poverty.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Sep 1, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> >Pretending atheism isn't a belief system.
> 
> Nice b8.



>implying not believing in something is a religion
Listen I have disdain for fedora tippers too but you can't just run around calling shit a religion, you're not a middle school writing student.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Are you just baiting for people to point out these places are also super white, Ronnie?



He’s also leaving out that New England was one of the richest parts of the world AND ultra religious in the colonial/Revolutionary period.


----------



## Judge Holden (Sep 1, 2019)

Irrelevant. 

When religion has an unchallangeable monopoly on information and legality, thats when shit gets bad for the societies involved due both to how much advancement inevitably gets stifled by those looking to protect their own powerbase, how much society as a whole comes to distrust the rule of law when one can escape consequence simply by clinging to religion and the religious institutions. Also such a toxic hegemony inevitably winds up inspiring resistance and revolution against it that will usually prove to be just as toxic in action, and just as repressive should they gain power.

However the same thing can be said and has been repeatedly demonstrated through history for political dogmas such as communism and fascism. Shit in the soviet union and nazi germany especially matches all I said above as the party's official narrative effectively took the place of religion, with priests and imams replaced by various party bureaucrats and officials who transcended the laws of the peasants and who controlled information that was distributed.

Religion can happily work in tandem with advancement, progress, and prosperity. Setting aside the examples of western europe and murica during the 18th-20th centuries, in the Islamic world the closest they came to being on the up and up, be it the Ottoman Empire or the Abbasid Caliphate, was when overt religious fanaticism was barred from being given the power to stifle all non religious thought and legality. People were still plenty religious, but the actual real world concerns and ambitions of princes and merchants and scientists were able to be fully explored without being violently shut down and suppressed by an overruling religious body that either feared the attack on their power or wanted to monopolise any advancement for themselves. Besides this, the Catholic Church was for most the middle ages the main patron of sciences and was happy to see any advancement of society until it got too mired in wannabe authoritarianism and fundie antics.  

Basically so long as religious bodies are not given ultimate power over the distribution and advancement of information and the laws of a nation, religion can be perfectly benign in a nation. Same way any philosophy can


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> >implying not believing in something is a religion
> Listen I have disdain for fedora tippers too but you can't just run around calling shit a religion, you're not a middle school writing student.


It's not a religion, but it's an active belief you have to hold. Atheism isn't shrugging your shoulders and not caring/not knowing, it's making a definitive statement and holding to it.


----------



## byuu (Sep 1, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> >Pretending atheism isn't a belief system.
> 
> Nice b8.


For Americans it is.
But in country like the Czech Republic or Estonia, everyone simply doesn't give a shit. These are no fedora tippers being triggered by religion. Religion or non-religion just doesn't play a big part in their lives.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Sep 1, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> >implying not believing in something is a religion
> Listen I have disdain for fedora tippers too but you can't just run around calling shit a religion, you're not a middle school writing student.


I said "belief system", ie. a series of assumptions which shapes the behaviour and mores of a person or society. A religion is that, but it's also a codified, ritualized structure in a way that atheism is not. 

My point is that all societies are built upon a series of assumptions and so singling one particular type of belief out from others is disingenuous; Catholic beliefs paired with political control of a society led to the Inquisition in the same way that Soviet and Maoist beliefs (which are inherently atheistic) paired with political control of a society lead to gulags, slavery, starvation and mass executions.


----------



## sadbird (Sep 1, 2019)

I don't think whether a country has a base religion makes them better or worse off, people make gods/religion in their own image in a sense, so whatever they prioritize in basic beliefs is gonna reflect in religion- But also people are going to seek out spirituality even when there's no organized religion or instances where they reject it (people worship all kinds of dumb shit without even realizing it or framing it in a religious context) I think that's what makes humans special as a species.
In that way it's a lot like vices, where in the energy cultivated away from a bad habit just gets substituted by another bad (or even good) habit. I don't think denying organized religion is ever going to make the need to fulfill that habit suddenly stop, nor will it make bad values suddenly disappear.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Sep 1, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> I said "belief system", ie. a series of assumptions which shapes the behaviour and mores of a person or society. A religion is that, but it's also a codified, ritualized structure in a way that atheism is not.
> 
> My point is that all societies are built upon a series of assumptions and so singling one particular type of belief out from others is disingenuous; Catholic beliefs paired with political control of a society led to the Inquisition in the same way that Soviet and Maoist beliefs (which are inherently atheistic) paired with political control of a society lead to gulags, slavery, starvation and mass executions.



I mean I was basically just ribbing you. This is a @Ron /pol/ thread, I didn't expect serious discussion.


----------



## Providence (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> It's not a religion, but it's an active belief you have to hold. Atheism isn't shrugging your shoulders and not caring/not knowing, it's making a definitive statement and holding to it.


Atheism is the absence of belief in this particular set of superstitions. Everything beyond that is personality, idiosyncrasy,  nonsense.  
How is "Nah, that'd sounds a lot like horseshit" a definitive statement? "Holding to it"? Until evidence arises,  you mean? How do you consider
the empty space where a belief could be to be a belief in itself? 

Anti theism is a definitive statement. It's held and maintained.  If evidence showed up,  you don't care because these gods are capricious and gross,  you aren't gonna subscribe no matter what.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Sofonda Cox said:


> Atheism is the absence of belief in this particular set of superstitions. Everything beyond that is personality, idiosyncrasy,  nonsense.
> How is "Nah, that'd sounds a lot like horseshit" a definitive statement? "Holding to it"? Until evidence arises,  you mean? How do you consider
> the empty space where a belief could be to be a belief in itself?
> 
> Anti theism is a definitive statement. It's held and maintained.  If evidence showed up,  you don't care because these gods are capricious and gross,  you aren't gonna subscribe no matter what.


"Nah, that sounds like horseshit" is a definitive statement. I'm not ribbing atheism here, especially considering I am an atheist. Like mentioned, atheistic beliefs were codified into law in several 20th century countries and used to control.

I'm talking specifically about fedora tipping atheism here, because there are absolutely tons of atheists who would refuse to accept evidence of God if it did appear. But just like there's plenty of sure in their ways but harmless Christians, it's the same for atheists. It's simply that the first step is completely believing in a stance, which for atheists is "God is completely made up and not real".


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Sep 1, 2019)

I think that the prevalence of any sort of dogma is bad for society, whether it be codified as part of a 'religion' or not.

Open societies which practice and encourage freedom of thought are societies which progress with time, build upon their strengths, and gradually do away with their contradictions and injustices. Closed societies which cling to dogma, superstition, and parochialism, on the other hand, are societies which invariably putrefy in their own stagnation.


----------



## FA 855 (Sep 1, 2019)

Okay well not sure if this is true or not, but Weber, a sociologist, wrote extensively about a theory he had that protestant countries do better than others because of a stronger work ethic due to the inherent values of the religion. Modern capitalism is the product of calvinist ethics and the encouragement of literacy.








						The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Not sure if its actually true or not*, but its a interesting idea imo.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> I said "belief system", ie. a series of assumptions which shapes the behaviour and mores of a person or society. A religion is that, but it's also a codified, ritualized structure in a way that atheism is not.
> 
> My point is that all societies are built upon a series of assumptions and so singling one particular type of belief out from others is disingenuous; Catholic beliefs paired with political control of a society led to the Inquisition in the same way that Soviet and Maoist beliefs (which are inherently atheistic) paired with political control of a society lead to gulags, slavery, starvation and mass executions.



Atheism is as much a belief system as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheists do not "believe" or "Take for granted"; we assess by what can be verified as fact. You can't say this is unreasonable, as the same logic that would lead us to take on faith your "belief" should rightfully also lead both of us to accept "belief" in Zeus, Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy. Though even then, there's far more support for the last two than the former.



HeyYou said:


> "Nah, that sounds like horseshit" is a definitive statement. I'm not ribbing atheism here, especially considering I am an atheist. Like mentioned, atheistic beliefs were codified into law in several 20th century countries and used to control.
> 
> I'm talking specifically about fedora tipping atheism here, because there are absolutely tons of atheists who would refuse to accept evidence of God if it did appear. But just like there's plenty of sure in their ways but harmless Christians, it's the same for atheists. It's simply that the first step is completely believing in a stance, which for atheists is "God is completely made up and not real".



Well, actually according to your Bible's claim that even the Devil can appear as a being of light if he was there he's making it purposefully difficult to find reason to believe in him.

As for "That sounds like horse shit", would you describe yourself as Afairy? Aunicorn? AKraken? Would you not think it ridiculous if I inisted that the girls from some anime were real and must be respected? Why must you insist on forcing a negative into an affirmative statement? How many people are obligated to identify as a non stamp collector?

The claim that people don't believe in your deity because there is no proof is laughable. There have been many people who've done the exact opposite when proof was staring them directly in the face; less we forget the Catholic Church thanks to the Geocentric model of the universe it affirmed was absolute truth required it to condemn "belief" and ban books that explained the existence of the Planets that would become known as Uranus and Neptune as heresy; despite it being very easy to prove at that stage. Why even today we've got Theists who insist that the world is flat!

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I know it inevitably will be taken as such. I appreciate there are people in this world who for one reason or another; be it the indescribable suffering they live amongst, an inability to accept death or just finding being told what to do comforting but not all of us are this unfortunate or weak. You don't offend people like me by talking about Euphoria, you just sound pathetic. In no other context are we expected to justify the non existence of mermaids, the monster that lives under your bed or the little green men from Andromeda; you sound like an idiot.

As for the claim that Christians are harmless; considering their common stances on things such as women's rights, contraception, abortion and other issues that their imaginary friends insists must be installed as law I think they're anything but harmless. Anyone who believes they are being guided by the hand and enforcing the will of Napoleon Bonaparte would risk being locked up in an asylum, but if you do it in the nape of a first century carpenter for some reason we are obligated to accept this as reasonable and worthy of respect.
----

Now as for the OP. I personally do think religion, especially Abrahamic and Indian religions, is harbored and maintained through desperation and hope in a better tomorrow for those who cannot or will not change the world now. However, I would be very hesitant to use these statistics as the sole reason behind them. The Czech Republic is a bit of an anomaly; they are a group that for most of history has been directly persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike; and seems to have come to the general perspective that religion is a bad thing altogether. Though religious persecution has been universal at some point, it was more normally the case that one religion persecuted another religion rather than multiple religions ganging up upon one group the way the Christians did to the Czechs.

There is a bit of the "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" about this situation in poor countries. Does poverty and ignorance beget religion, or does religion beget poverty and ignorance? I think there's more of a vicious cycle, one causes the other over and over and it continues to amplify until the balance is disturbed (conditions improve or a better religion, either materially or promise wise, moves in). Africans were poor before the Christian Missionaries moved in, but accepting the colonial faith over their own at the time did provide social advancement or material that the others did not which broke the maintainence of native religions.

TL;DR: I think Religion can be a cause of poverty, such as Islam removing 50% of the population from productivity outright,  but during the initial stages it is a symptom. In the decades prior to Islam Arabia had undergone changes and threats to their native way of life, threatened by the encroachment of the wealthy Christian and Persian powers both heavily influenced by a foreign and exotic religion entirely different from their native polytheism. They took aspects of both, and created a power of their own. Islam was born in a society under threat from outsiders, and then until it burst outwards in the form of the Islamic conquest was the symptom rather than a cause it would later become.

I think the internet and seeing just how better the "evil" western world is will slowly become the death of religion as we know it as a system of dogmatic belief and supernatural power on a wider scale; when they realize those their deities despise live far more fufilled and productive lives despite all the prayers the long faithful make. It might not end up on this grand scale, but we can't say the logic doesn't hold; bar migrants into first world nations traditional forms of piety are dying in the regions with the most technology access and education.



RedRightHand said:


> Okay well not sure if this is true or not, but Weber, a sociologist, wrote extensively about a theory he had that protestant countries do better than others because of a stronger work ethic due to the inherent values of the religion. Modern capitalism is the product of calvinist ethics and the encouragement of literacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This could just be a case of Protestantism encouraging literacy and criticism of some forms of authority (i.e: the Catholic priesthood) and self reflection; which in turn granted access to other sources of information and the ability to interpret and consider them.


----------



## RG 448 (Sep 1, 2019)

Christianity specifically creates better countries.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> WORDS


I said in my post I was an atheist, you don't have to use the word "your" as if you're insulting me personally because you're not. If you have to say, "I don't mean to be condescending" and then go on a diatribe against something, you're being condescending. 



> I appreciate there are people in this world who for one reason or another; be it the indescribable suffering they live amongst, an inability to accept death or just finding being told what to do comforting but not all of us are this unfortunate or weak. You don't offend people like me by talking about Euphoria, you just sound pathetic. In no other context are we expected to justify the non existance of mermaids, the monster that lives under your bed or the little green men from Andromeda; you sound like an idiot.


Did you remember your fedora? This is the /r/atheism level tipping.


----------



## wylfım (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Atheists do not "believe" or "Take for granted"; we assess by what can be verified as fact. You can't say this is unreasonable, as the same logic that would lead us to take on faith your "belief" should rightfully also lead both of us to accept "belief" in Zeus, Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy. Though even then, there's far more support for the last two than the former.


Just because something is falsifiable, doesn't mean a lack of evidence to the contrary implies truth.
Falsifiability means that it can be disproven. Once it is disproven, you can take that as incontrovertible fact. Until it's been disproven, it's on the same epistemological grounds as any non-falsifiable belief (like religion).




Fagatron said:


> As for the claim that Christians are harmless; considering their common stances on things such as womens rights, contraception, abortion and other issues that their imaginary freinds insists must be installed as law I think they're anything but harmless. Anyone who believes they are being guided by the hand and enforcing the will of Napoleon Bonaparte would risk being locked up in an asylum, but if you do it in the nape of a first century carpenter for some reason we are obligated to accept this as reasonable and worthy of respect.


What's wrong with making moral claims on women's rights? The "you're not a woman" argument falls apart because you can find any obscure criteria that applies to one group but not another, meaning you inevitably hit moral nihilism (and if you think there's nothing wrong with that, give me your address so I can come murder you and steal your money because it shouldn't matter to you). If you claim it's because "they're not hurting anyone," that also doesn't fit with the empirical reality that women's rights lead to a decrease in social cohesion (more inter-gender conflict), breakdown of the traditional family unit, and arguable mass genocide (the issue of whether a fetus is a human is irrelevant. Assume we can't know; being morally conservative and assuming it is, is a superior stance to potentially killing someone).
Really this boils down to "I disagree with these people and so their proscriptive mores hurt my fee-fees," because a breakdown in these moral laws is empirically, to use your own words, "anything but harmless."

As for anyone comparing mass statistics on countries:
1) being poor isn't necessarily bad
2) you have to look at how the murder/crime rate breaks down: is it the religious, or non-religious people, who commit crimes? You can't assume that subgroupings within a country are the same demographic as the country itself.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

wylfım said:


> Just because something is falsifiable, doesn't mean a lack of evidence to the contrary implies truth.
> Falsifiability means that it can be disproven. Once it is disproven, you can take that as incontrovertible fact. Until it's been disproven, it's on the same epistemological grounds as any non-falsifiable belief (like religion).



On this grounds then we should continue to offer blood sacrifices to ensure that the sun rises each morning; after all we've never proven that the sun will rise if we don't. Sure we've missed a few years but maybe we just banked enough points back when the Aztec's were still around. We've got no _proof_ that the sun will rise if we don't sacrifice people, we should continue to sacrifice a few _just in case._

So literal millions of people can continue to be frightened with the prospect of them and everyone they love being roasted by a wrathful deity.

So that millions of people can give up their money and lives to serve a God that isn't even there.

So that homosexuals, divorcees and single mothers can continue to be persecuted just on the off chance the invisible man actually is watching.

Can you not see the problem with this, living out a faith until we can disprove a negative? Pascal's wager wasn't very good at the time, and your version of it isn't any better.




wylfım said:


> What's wrong with making moral claims on women's rights? The "you're not a woman" argument falls apart because you can find any obscure criteria that applies to one group but not another, meaning you inevitably hit moral nihilism (and if you think there's nothing wrong with that, give me your address so I can come murder you and steal your money because it shouldn't matter to you). If you claim it's because "they're not hurting anyone," that also doesn't fit with the empirical reality that women's rights lead to a decrease in social cohesion (more inter-gender conflict), breakdown of the traditional family unit, and arguable mass genocide (the issue of whether a fetus is a human is irrelevant. Assume we can't know; being morally conservative and assuming it is, is a superior stance to potentially killing someone).
> Really this boils down to "I disagree with these people and so their proscriptive mores hurt my fee-fees," because a breakdown in these moral laws is empirically, to use your own words, "anything but harmless."



Now, let's break this down. I'm not affirming my own agreement with "womens rights"; this is such a vague an empty term these days. I would describe myself as supportive of second wave feminism, but opposed to third and fourth. But that aside.

Let's look at how one could argue about womens rights, if they're good or bad. With someone like myself who demands facts, if you can bring me genuine proofm studies and statistics to demonstrate that say the right for a woman to work and be paid the same as a man was destructive and harmful I would be able to change my stance and support yours. I don't think it's likely there is this evidence but I welcome you to try, being proven wrong is a chance to learn and a step of advancement for everyone involved.

Now if you're having this same conversation with a Theist; no matter what evidence you bring to the table if it contradicts a basic tenant of faith (say with flat earthers), they are obligated to dismiss it and oppose the truth.

There is perfectly valid reasons to think people who base their political stances not on reason or evidence, but flights of fancy, are dangerous. As much as you might dislike certain secular groups there is the potential to reason and discuss over time. There is no such potential with religious groups; it's either a constant fight (see abortion, I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, just making the point) or waiting and hoping for them to die out. Morals don't actually come into this at all, it's all about the dogma of the faith at the time. See the flip flopping with the Mormons over the morality of black worshippers and polygamy for a prime example of this.

It's possible to reason over facts, it's not possible to reason over fairy tales with zealots who refuse to even entertain the notion that their divine truths may not actually be true.




wylfım said:


> As for anyone comparing mass statistics on countries:
> 1) being poor isn't necessarily bad
> 2) you have to look at how the murder/crime rate breaks down: is it the religious, or non-religious people, who commit crimes? You can't assume that subgroupings within a country are the same demographic as the country itself.



1) Poor people are often a source of crime, poor people who are desperate enough steal to preserve their families. Just one example.
2) 




Make of that what you will.


----------



## Lord of the Large Pants (Sep 1, 2019)

While simply throwing religion at societal problems isn't some sort of instant fix, taking it away sure as hell doesn't help either, considering that every officially atheistic state in the history of the world has sucked total and complete ass.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> A SHITTON OF WORDS


Nigga, your argument here is literally one of the best examples of argumentum ad ignorantiam I've seen in ages.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Nigga, your argument here is literally one of the best examples I've seen of argumentum ad ignorantiam in ages.



LOL I CANT PRUV JESUS SO I CALL U NIGG

HUR HUR SO CLEVR

Since we're on this level now clearly.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> LOL I CANT PRUV JESUS SO I CALL U NIGG
> 
> HUR HUR SO CLEVR
> 
> Since we're on this level now clearly.


How am I supposed to argue with you seriously when you couldn't even read a few sentences and called me a Christian as a result?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> How am I supposed to argue with you seriously when you couldn't even read a few sentences and called me a Christian as a result?



Keep dodging. It's fine.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Keep dodging. It's fine.


I'm not dodging anything. You are taking this way too seriously, and you're typing out autistic screeds to own the Christfags.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> I'm not dodging anything. You are taking this way too seriously, and you're typing out autistic screeds to own the Christfags.



I'm actually more bothered by the Muslims, though I do think all supernatural belief is dangerous. If you talk good smack you shouldn't be surprised to get a response.

Especially when the post also answers the OP and points raised below.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Sep 1, 2019)

Name me one problem the west faces that cannot be fixed with an established islamic leadership system.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I'm actually more bothered by the Muslims, though I do think all supernatural belief is dangerous. If you talk good smack you shouldn't be surprised to get a response.
> 
> Especially when the post also answers the OP and points raised below.


I'm really pointing out that my post in response to Sofonda was talking about atheism being a verifiable "position" in relation to Christianity because of the existence of fedora tippers, and you come in with the biggest fedora tipping post to try to refute my claim, all while seemingly ignoring the part of the post where I explicitly stated that I am an atheist to dunk on me and Christfags in general.



maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Name me one problem the west faces that cannot be fixed with an established islamic leadership system.


Islam is considered the problem in tons of places, why would you solve a problem with that same exact problem?


----------



## .Woody (Sep 1, 2019)

I think belief can be a positive force on peoples lives, and depending on the religion it can even be unifying. When you start implementing belief on a larger scale, like integrating it into government or politics, things can and do go wrong fast. Read "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett. It's got an interesting take on what religion does when people start using belief as an excuse rather than an ideal.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> I'm really pointing out that my post in response to Sofonda was talking about atheism being a verifiable "position" in relation to Christianity because of the existence of fedora tippers, and you come in with the biggest fedora tipping post to try to refute my claim, all while seemingly ignoring the part of the post where I explicitly stated that I am an atheist.



Atheism is the lack of a position. Theists do try to put Atheists into a position within their worldview but this is always to the detriment of us. Rather than accept the idea that yes, people can and do live well without their divine sugardaddy of choice, it's far less jarring for them to lump us in a specific box for heretics rather than us just not being in the race at all.

I welcome the label of Fedora if my title to the left wasn't a clue, there's no room for moderation or being gentle in this matter. There's no reason to show any respect to a group who thinks the rest of the world quite justly deserves to burn. The very least a theist deserves is mockery and scorn, because their books explain in quite vivid detail what their best people would like to do to the rest of us given half a chance.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Islam is considered the problem in tons of places, why would you solve a problem with that same exact problem?


Be more specific than that.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Be more specific than that.













B-B-But Islam is peace B-Baka!


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Atheism is the lack of a position. Theists do try to put Atheists into a position within their worldview but this is always to the detriment of us. Rather than accept the idea that yes, people can and do live well without their divine sugardaddy of choice, it's far less jarring for them to lump us in a specific box for heretics rather than us just not being in the race at all.
> 
> I welcome the label of Fedora if my title to the left wasn't a clue, there's no room for moderation or being gentle in this matter. There's no reason to show any respect to a group who thinks the rest of the world quite justly deserves to burn. The very least a theist deserves is mockery and scorn, because their books explain in quite vivid detail what their best people would like to do to the rest of us given half a chance.


Then my argument was completely correct and you are taking a specific position, numbnuts. You state you don't have a position and then in the next paragraph state you have to be direct and open about a specific position to religious people. You state that atheists shouldn't be considered in the same playing field as theists but then state that atheists need to directly butt heads with religious people, which would only further confirm atheists and theists are arguing on the same level. By your own logic religious people shouldn't be respectful to atheists because they killed millions of people and an atheist state is currently putting religious people into concentration camps.



maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Be more specific than that.


If the argument is that Islam is bringing in crime and destroying social cohesion/committing violence, why would anyone consider implementing those religious laws already being criticized into official law to be a valid solution?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Then my argument was completely correct and you are taking a specific position, numbnuts. You state you don't have a position and then in the next paragraph state you have to be direct and open about a specific position to religious people. You state that atheists shouldn't be considered in the same playing field as theists but then state that atheists need to directly butt heads with religious people, which would only further confirm atheists and theists are arguing on the same level. By your own logic religious people shouldn't be respectful to atheists because they killed millions of people and an atheist state is currently putting religious people into concentration camps.



I'm saying atheists are being treated as a beast that they are not, and atheists need to resist and laugh at theists when they try and fit them into their paradigm rather than sit and accept the idea that we are a belief system as Theists insist we are. 

Why is butting heads equivocal to accepting the place where theists place us? We're not arguing on the same level, we are literally arguing with people whose arguments suggest we should fully believe in and live to appease the Easter Bunny. Were it not for societal conditioning and tradition giving this small selection of beliefs a special platform, we wouldn't even give them two seconds listening.

Religious people do not respect atheists. These are people who go miles out of their way, to the point of voting for candidates who make it core parts of their platforms to revoke rights we hold and to bolster the rights of religious believers. Any "respect" between the two is a thin veneer, and one which inevitably at the moment favors the religious believer. It's not just in the US. In several parts of Europe it's a hate crime to "offend" or critique a religious faith, but religious are perfectly free to call for the murder of unbelievers.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I'm saying atheists are being treated as a beast that they are not, and atheists need to resist and laugh at theists when they try and fit them into their paradigm rather than sit and accept the idea that we are a belief system as Theists insist we are.
> 
> Why is butting heads equivocal to accepting the place where theists place us? We're not arguing on the same level, we are literally arguing with people whose arguments suggest we should fully believe in and live to appease the Easter Bunny. Were it not for societal conditioning and tradition giving this small selection of beliefs a special platform, we wouldn't even give them two seconds listening.
> 
> Religious people do not respect atheists. These are people who go miles out of their way, to the point of voting for candidates who make it core parts of their platforms to revoke rights we hold and to bolster the rights of religious believers. Any "respect" between the two is a thin veneer, and one which inevitably at the moment favors the religious believer. It's not just in the US. In several parts of Europe it's a hate crime to "offend" or critique a religious faith, but religious are perfectly free to call for the murder of unbelievers.


You didn't respond to the point about atheist states murdering millions of people and interning religious people. Also, get over your victim complex dude. Do you know popular being an atheist or agnostic is nowadays? Literally no one made fun of me for being an atheist in school. In fact, a (rather spergy) Christian was the one always getting bullied. Strict Christianity isn't even popular anymore, it's why Christians are increasingly going to chill non-denominational churches. Christianity is getting just as blasted in Europe, you know as well as I do those laws are in place mostly for Islam. And it has more to do with the fact that Muslims are increasingly considered more of a race.

It's as if you're stuck in the late 2000s like tons of gay people are.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Sep 1, 2019)

maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Name me one problem the west faces that cannot be fixed with an established islamic leadership system.



The industrial scale grooming & rape of vulnerable, white girls in England. 

And the ability to be able to find a superb bacon sandwich in a cafe. 

Oh, and street shitting. 

And Islamist terror attacks.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> You didn't respond to the point about atheist states murdering millions of people and interning religious people.



They did. Would you like me to say that was wrong? Would that make it any better?

People in the past killed each other; that does not devalue the truth of what I say despite attempts to exploit emotion and feels by evoking this sentiment.



HeyYou said:


> Also, get over your victim complex dude. Do you know popular being an atheist or agnostic is nowadays? Literally no one made fun of me for being an atheist in school. In fact, a (rather spergy) Christian was the one always getting bullied. Strict Christianity isn't even popular anymore, it's why Christians are increasingly going to chill non-denominational churches. Christianity is getting just as blasted in Europe, you know as well as I do those laws are in place mostly for Islam. And it has more to do with the fact that Muslims are increasingly considered more of a race.
> 
> It's as if you're stuck in the late 2000s like tons of gay people are.



I'm actually saying this more as a former Catholic seminarian with masters level qualifications in Theology and Divinity than a gay man; because as a gay man who never was "outed" during his time there and who at the time followed and was content in a celibate life I've had a front rowseat for much of my life to watch religious psychopathy firsthand. I've watched people struggle with their homosexual urges, I've seen clerics run away with peoples spouses, cheat and commit a good number of sins. That isn't actually what caused me to lose faith, but it does provide me with a level of insight into the internal mechanism that drives the religious belief that most people haven't had the (mis)fortune of getting to see first hand.

I'm not making this fight exclusively about Christians; as I said I find all supernatural believers contemptable but if there is one group I feel is the greatest threat it is the Muslims who do still possess the numbers and will to murder for their beliefs on a national and world scale. I agree, Christianity doesn't benefit from those laws as much as Islam and when pitted against Islam tends to lose in legal battles; but at the same time non-religious organizations here in Europe who oppose non-Islamic faith groups do foul of them in the game of top trumps.

I view Christianity as a toothless tiger in the west, a sleeping beast because anywhere in the world it does retain power it causes problems; see the African Bishops who teach that witches cause Ebola or that Condoms give you AIDS.

I'm not stuck in the past, I see the hydra that has been wounded slowly getting back up to bite us in the future.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 1, 2019)

RedRightHand said:


> Okay well not sure if this is true or not, but Weber, a sociologist, wrote extensively about a theory he had that protestant countries do better than others because of a stronger work ethic due to the inherent values of the religion. Modern capitalism is the product of calvinist ethics and the encouragement of literacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> They did. Would you like me to say that was wrong? Would that make it any better?
> 
> People in the past killed each other; that does not devalue the truth of what I say despite attempts to exploit emotion and feels by evoking this sentiment.
> 
> ...


And that makes you a fedora tipper who can't see shades of gray and will say explicitly atheist governments oppressing religious people doesn't matter because people have been repressing each for years instead of admitting that your own logic would lead to the natural conclusion that religious people have a right to be scared of atheism. Atheist states are just as likely to repress, turn back the clock on human progress, and have terrible human rights records. You are so close to realizing that religion is a spectrum that also needs to be looked at fairly but then completely miss the mark.

You are preaching to the choir, dude, I've been through everything you've been through in regards to falling out of religion. Except I still occasionally attended my (Protestant) Church for holiday services because the people there were the nicest people I've ever met.



Ron /pol/ said:


> View attachment 917321


Ron, you wouldn't be using a modern day chart with tons of service economies to make your point, would you?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> View attachment 917321




That's just a dishonesty chart. Siestas don't count as hours worked, burro.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> And that makes you a fedora tipper who can't see shades of gray and will say explicitly atheist governments oppressing religious people doesn't matter because people have been repressing each for years instead of admitting that your own logic would lead to the natural conclusion that religious people have a right to be scared of atheism. Atheist states are just as likely to repress, turn back the clock on human progress, and have terrible human rights records. You are so close to realizing that religion is a spectrum that also needs to be looked at fairly but then completely miss the mark.



I'm not suggesting persecuting religious people or killing them.

I'm all for suggesting removing their special rights such as placing taxes on religious organizations and places of worship and the right for their belief system to be officially respected or else by law. When it comes to the next step such as preventing the religious indoctrination of children it's then I'm more on the fence; not because I believe it is good or a right (I don't, I consider it a form of child abuse to tell them such huge lies) but I haven't developed or been told of a feasible alternative yet.

This is another false equivalency theists promote; not giving them special rights to ignore uniform codes or to not paying taxes is not persecution, it's expecting the same standard of everyone which is in fact equality.


HeyYou said:


> You are preaching to the choir, dude, I've been through everything you've been through in regards to falling out of religion. Except I still occasionally attended my (Protestant) Church for holiday services because the people there were the nicest people I've ever met.



Admittedly the thing about credentials was less for you and anyone else reading who might presume I'm just the angry gay man. I'm really not, I could have had I chosen to have both a successful career as a cleric and a quite adequate sex life at the same time if I'd wished; I didn't because it's a farce and I'd be contributing towards an institution that is fundamentally at the core wrong about the most basic things.

The only thing I would ask, and I don't mean to poke or be rude in doing so is why you attend these holiday services. You say these are some of the nicest people you have met which they could well be, but by attending do we not at very least imply support or respect for an institution which is not only wrong, but at times harmful? It's something that's crossed my mind a few times; I'm not going to say there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm not sure myself; merely I've been asked (with my past) to be a godparent by cultural Catholics a couple of times and while it upset them I said no on both accounts. For them it was more a social thing, but I wasn't going to give the impression I supported the childs indoctrination. I've likewise not attended other things such as Bah Mitzvah parties when invited for similar reasons.

I can see the irony above and the similarity to Christians boycotting gay weddings, which I do understand and sympathize with. Refusing to serve being another matter, considering I'm not allowed to refuse to serve theists under equality legislation here wheras they can refuse to serve me with both being an atheist and a faggot as equally valid reasons to not do so.


----------



## Rungle (Sep 1, 2019)

i love the nation of israel


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> (I don't, I consider it a form of child abuse to tell them such huge lies)


That's the thing, dude, how am I even supposed to argue anything past this? I fundamentally would consider it abhorrent to declare a parent teaching their child about their religion a child abuser. 



Fagatron said:


> The only thing I would ask, and I don't mean to poke or be rude in doing so is why you attend these holiday services. You say these are some of the nicest people you have met which they could well be, but by attending do we not at very least imply support or respect for an institution which is not only wrong, but at times harmful? It's something that's crossed my mind a few times; I'm not going to say there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm not sure myself; merely I've been asked (with my past) to be a godparent by cultural Catholics a couple of times and while it upset them I said no on both accounts. For them it was more a social thing, but I wasn't going to give the impression I supported the childs indoctrination. I've likewise not attended other things such as Bah Mitzvah parties when invited for similar reasons.


I support and respect my local Church, yes. They have done good work I could only dream of doing, and they've been doing it at a loss for over a decade. At no point have they done anything that could be construed as harmful, unless you seriously believe talking about their belief in God to be harmful. When I first realized I was an atheist I stated openly to my pastor that I didn't believe in God and I felt terrible for still continuing to attend the Church. He said that it was my prerogative to continue to come to Church for whatever reason I wanted to because it was his belief that it wasn't in his power to judge another human being's viewpoint on the divine. He gave an entire sermon one day talking about how he believed God would be saddened by the vitriol towards gay people. That's kind of what I've been trying to say. I don't know if it's a modern day difference between Catholicism and Protestantism or what, but tons of Protestant Churches are completely different from what you described Christianity as.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's just a dishonesty chart. Siestas don't count as hours worked, burro.


Greece and S. Korea are the next on the list and they definitely aren't protestant dude.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> and S. Korea are the next on the list and they definitely aren't protestant dude.



I don't think you've been to either country if you think they are beacons of honest book keeping.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Greece


Is a shithole.


----------



## CatharticShitHead (Sep 1, 2019)

Replying to the in general question, and to quote FatFuckFrank


FatFuckFrank said:


> depends on the religion



I'm trying to not be biased as I'm a shithead atheist, and it would be super fucking easy to just be lazy with this and be like, "YeS rElIgIon bad". 

So, with an unbiased thinking about this, yes and no?

I think the world in general needs religion, no matter which it is sometimes as people are either too stupid, indoctrinated, or just like the idea of religion so they need it. Either they use it as a guide of how to act and what their morals should be. So yeah, religion makes countries better, but also worse. I know, it doesn't make sense and I sound like a fuckwit. 

I think religion, like all other things has to have some type of moderation. Not in the sense that there are people moderating what others believe in but the people who believe themselves sometimes need to question their own beliefs and think, "Is this too much"?

The problem with the idea I just stated is that like with everything you fuckers have seen on this hellsite, is that every lunatic whether it's some troon or the local fat bearded woman sjw cunt, think that they're 100% right on any and everything they claim or think. 

And like every group ever, there are fucking lunatics in religion. The Christian people who used to lynch the gays. The Muslim people who still do that. The very fucking rare buddhist who goes on a rampage, etc. And those lunatics are the ones, in my opinion, that make countries worse. 

Like those Syrian we wuz kang niggers who immigrated to Germany and made the amount of rape cases fucking skyrocket. 

So yeah. Yes and no.


----------



## Idiotron (Sep 1, 2019)

Any belief system that is resistant to change will have a negative impact on society.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't think you've been to either country if you think they are beacons of honest book keeping.


Cope.


HeyYou said:


> Is a shithole.


They still work more hours on average.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> They still work more hours on average.


Why isn't Greece an economic powerhouse then?


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 1, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Why isn't Greece an economic powerhouse then?


Beside the point. There a bunch of reasons Greece is less developed than Germany (just ignore that Korea had on average the second most hours worked in a year and is considered first world/developed) my point is that all the countries that work "the most" and generally in the worst conditions aren't protestant.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 1, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> They still work more hours on average



For Greece in particular it means "spent more hours at work" rather than "worked more hours". They're some of the laziest fucking people I've seen at "work".


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 1, 2019)

FatFuckFrank said:


> depends on the religion



Depends on the culture, economy and geography.



Testaclese Maximus said:


> Christianity specifically creates better countries.





HeyYou said:


> Islam is considered the problem in tons of places, why would you solve a problem with that same exact problem?



The 30 years war basically destroyed Europe and the overly bureaucratic Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches basically crippled their countries. They took upwards of 30% of the tax revenue and did nothing with it. 

It really depends on the circumstances. Post-enlightenment Christianity both embraced and rejected stuff like eugenics and mass murder in the colonies. Islam in most places is crazy but in Canada,China,  Russia and even the Balkans it is entirely chill.

The USA had (and still has) crazy Christianity but it has space for those crazies to go and not bother anybody. Britain had puritans taking over and enforcing ISIS tier laws on the country (ban music, veils, etc).


----------



## Basil II (Sep 1, 2019)

>it's another ron /pol/ bait thread



Apoth42 said:


> Depends on the culture, economy and geography.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Imagine thinking the 30 years war was actually motivated by religion and wasn't just everyone in Europe trying to fuck Austria.

The reason Islam is chill in the Balkans and Russia is because of Tsar and Commies cucking it to hell and back. it can still get very allahu akbary in the border regions like chechnya.


----------



## The best and greatest (Sep 2, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> Wait a second, Ron, that's white nationalist talk right there.



Is it? I thought the white nationalist position is that America IS white and therefor we ought not allow more coloreds.



HeyYou said:


> It's not a religion, but it's an active belief you have to hold. Atheism isn't shrugging your shoulders and not caring/not knowing, it's making a definitive statement and holding to it.



So what is "I have no logical reason to believe these statements are correct as written, so I don't believe it?" I suppose you could argue that this statement is an expression logical reasoning, but can that even be considered a "belief system"?


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 2, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Is it? I thought the white nationalist position is that America IS white and therefor we ought not allow more coloreds.


The argument that America isn't white because we're mixed breed or mutts is absolutely a "white nationalist" argument, it's just that other countries tend to use it.



The best and greatest said:


> So what is "I have no logical reason to believe these statements are correct as written, so I don't believe it?" I suppose you could argue that this statement is an expression logical reasoning, but can that even be considered a "belief system"?


On the same level as Christians who are pretty relaxed about their faith. Meanwhile, people like Hitchens and New Atheism make atheism very much a belief system.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Sep 2, 2019)

Eh, as much as I despise radical Islamist countries and the Evangelical Protestant fundies, I'd say that explicitly atheistic countries tend to be the worst, at least in the developed world. 

A lot of the Islamic shitholes in Africa and the Middle East also have other external factors such as political instability and a poor economy, to say nothing of the Saudi royals going out of their way to push their own brand of Puritan Islam on these unstable regions. So, I'm not going to go into the problems with those countries, since they have a lot more pressing issues than religion.

But yeah, the worst countries in the developed world are often atheist.

Notice that I did not say secular, I explicitly said atheist.

Prime examples of "hard" atheist states would be the Soviet Union, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China and we all know how horrible those shitholes are (or were, in the case of the USSR)

Even "soft" atheist states that are de jure secular but de facto atheist are usually horrible shitholes as well and tend to be crippled by their own bullshit. Prime examples include Sweden, Germany, and on a regional level, the American West Coast. 

Religion is an important part of human culture. A person can be an atheist individual and be perfectly functional, but people are herd animals and always seek a shepherd in the form of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the State (as seen in atheist countries)

For all the flaws in religion, at least there is a moral code and a sense of what is sacred. 

A secular society that protects the rights of the religious without endorsing and enabling them works best, as seen with the United States. Granted, part of why the USA made that work is because we have a large amount of territory with a very large and culturally diverse population. Every once in a while, the pendulum swings one way or the other. 

In the Reagan and Bush years, we had to deal with the Religious Right and an era of soft dominionism. Now we've swung the other way and are going through an era of soft state atheism, but the pendulum will swing back again. The form that it takes may change, but the American cultural zeitgeist always swings back and forth one way or the other.

When this country was founded, the Northeast was a Puritan theocracy that made the modern-day Bible Belt look like 2010's Portland while the South was the domain of college-educated middle class gentlemen that were often fixated on the Enlightenment. Then the American Civil War happened and it flipped the script. 

Hell, just within living memory we went from the McCarthyism and conformist conservatism of the 1950's and early 1960's to the counterculture-driven New Left of the late 1960's and 1970's to the Religious Right of the 1980's, 1990's. and 2000's to the SJW's of today.


----------



## RG 448 (Sep 2, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> It really depends on the circumstances. Post-enlightenment Christianity both embraced and rejected stuff like eugenics and mass murder in the colonies. Islam in most places is crazy but in Canada,China, Russia and even the Balkans it is entirely chill.
> 
> The USA had (and still has) crazy Christianity but it has space for those crazies to go and not bother anybody. Britain had puritans taking over and enforcing ISIS tier laws on the country (ban music, veils, etc).


Christianity is the one true faith though.


----------



## The best and greatest (Sep 2, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> The argument that America isn't white because we're mixed breed or mutts is absolutely a "white nationalist" argument, it's just that other countries tend to use it.
> 
> 
> On the same level as Christians who are pretty relaxed about their faith. Meanwhile, people like Hitchens and New Atheism make atheism very much a belief system.


I don't think he said anything about interbreeding unless "White" is supposed to be a euphemism for "Pure-bred" but I don't think that was the case given the context of his statement and his general political sentiments.


----------



## HeyYou (Sep 2, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I don't think he said anything about interbreeding unless "White" is supposed to be a euphemism for "Pure-bred" but I don't think that was the case given the context of his statement and his general political sentiments.


First, Ron's a troll, even if he's serious about a few of his beliefs. Second, considering the context was me flippantly asking if he was baiting for people to point out that his examples of success in the US were overwhelmingly white, and he responded that Americans aren't white, it was a pretty clear le 56% joke.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Sep 2, 2019)

Syaoran Li said:


> Prime examples of "hard" atheist states would be the Soviet Union, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China and we all know how horrible those shitholes are (or were, in the case of the USSR)



The only real motivation those "hard atheist" states had for persecuting religion was because they saw it as a direct challenge to the dogma they wished to replace it with (namely: Stalinism, Juche, and Maoism, respectively). I really don't think it's accurate to say that a lack of religion was the problem, the real problem was that they were merely replacing one dogma with another far more radical one.

This goes back to what I said a couple of pages ago: it's not religion _specifically_ that makes a society worse, it's any form of dogma. Once a society is pervaded by an ideology which no one is allowed to question, that society is invariably going to suffer for it.



Syaoran Li said:


> Even "soft" atheist states that are de jure secular but de facto atheist are usually horrible shitholes as well and tend to be crippled by their own bullshit. Prime examples include Sweden, Germany, and on a regional level, the American West Coast.



I think those societies have their own problems which have nothing to do with religion.

Sweden, for instance, has historically been very isolated, which has encouraged a very altruistic culture among the Swedes. Obviously, this altruism has been misplaced in recent years, but Sweden is still overall a very functional society, and boasts some of the highest reported levels of happiness in the world.

Germany is a country which is still largely reeling from it's history, a fact which has caused them on many occasions to overcorrect, and adopt policies which are clearly imprudent (like allowing the mass migration of culturally dissimilar refugees that obviously weren't properly vetted). Overall though, Germany is really not a bad place to live, and from all of the people I know who've visited, I've heard nothing but good things.

As for California, California's problems are mostly the result of it's high living costs, which are exacerbated by the fact that it has a totally porous border with the other 49 US states, and one of the largest economies in the world. Money being no object though, it's still way better to be in California than the Bible belt. It's not even close.


----------



## The best and greatest (Sep 2, 2019)

HeyYou said:


> First, Ron's a troll, even if he's serious about a few of his beliefs. Second, considering the context was me flippantly asking if he was baiting for people to point out that his examples of success in the US were overwhelmingly white, and he responded that Americans aren't white, it was a pretty clear le 56% joke.


Fair enough.


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 5, 2019)

Basil II said:


> >it's another ron /pol/ bait thread
> 
> 
> Imagine thinking the 30 years war was actually motivated by religion and wasn't just everyone in Europe trying to fuck Austria.



Austria and Spain controlled the Papacy. Hell, one of those orgy having degenerates gifted Spain the entire western hemisphere.



Basil II said:


> The reason Islam is chill in the Balkans and Russia is because of Tsar and Commies cucking it to hell and back. it can still get very allahu akbary in the border regions like chechnya.



That is part of it but also the schools of Islam in these regions have always been especially liberal. Saudi has been exporting Wahhabi Islam into the region as of late and its caused chaos. Same thing is happening in the UK - Somalis who have historically had a moderate version of Islam are becoming radicalized by Saudi funded mosques and traveling extremists.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 5, 2019)

The worse the country, the more religious the people become.
When nothing works, you want to seek help from a higher power.

Makes you wonder why muslim immigrants want to build mosques everywhere in England or France.


----------



## Terrorist (Sep 6, 2019)

Look at christian vs atheist societies throughout history. Which would you rather live in? Checkmate atheists.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 6, 2019)

Humans are mostly hard wired to be religious. Even atheists nearly all have some kind of irrational faith in something. The question is meaningless since it requires a society populated mostly by creatures that don't reflect the human condition.

t. euphoric atheist that believes in FREEDUM


----------



## Random_Person_Online (Sep 7, 2019)

I think even if a society chose something more orthodox like Theravada Buddhism, that society would be better off as a whole. I'm currently looking into converting to Catholicism for one, because I find that organized religion makes society a better place to begin with.

It's usually the dysfunctional religions and atheism/secular ideologies (such as paganism, humanism, atheist plus) bullshit that creates a load of degenerates in society. 

Personal beliefs and philosophies like Epicureanism and even Ayn Rand philosophy may be good for the individual who has an IQ above 120, but for the masses, including the lower IQ people in society, I think would actually be better off if they became more dedicated to an organized religion such as Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism. 

I'm not saying organized religion solves all our problems, but it does solve a great many of them and gets rid of the more stupid ideologies within and outside of religion as a whole. The more organized a religion is, and the more adherents it has within the society it occupates, the better off that society will be in the long run.

Religion encourages self discipline, self control, charity, personal growth, and societal growth. 

I'm not saying you can't get those without religion, but for the masses (especially the ones with lower IQs/anxiety problems/depression issues) it actually improves their mental and physical well being instead of drugging themselves up with SSRIs, they actually learn to meditate either through prayer or traditional eastern meditation. 

For certain individuals, they're actually better off being atheists. But for the mass majority of people, we're actually better off being religious as it provides us with a sense of community and belonging. It also provides us with a sense of purpose that in many cases, which is why so many atheists and non-religious people alike get sucked into the SJW nutjob crowds.


----------



## Lurkio (Sep 7, 2019)

I mean, you could ask the same thing about technology. It's helped improve the quality of life in a lot of countries like the US, a good chunk of Europe, ect. but has also driven many places to be total shit holes, like certain area's in The Middle East or North Korea, the later officially being recognized as an Atheist state. I think the issue isn't with Religion, it how people use religion. I do believe, at its core, religions are meant to serve as a moral guide line for a person and give them faith in something greater then themselves or that thier actions have merit in the eyes of a power so great humans can't evven begin to understand it, which, hey, some people need, but it can be used to push masses towards immoral actions. Just like how science and technology is meant to improve quality of life and the average persons understanding of the world around them, but can also be used by people and governments to commit truly heinous acts.   

Like may people in this thread have said, it depends more on the people using it and how it's handled then anything else.


----------



## Morgenti (Sep 7, 2019)

i don't think religion changes a country in economic and death rates. 

look at Brazil,although Brazil says that they are a laic State, roughly 64,6% % of their population is Catholic.
Brazil in 5 months of this year had 17 thousands homicides in records (july) that's a lot of dead people in just 5 months and we're still in september.
Brazil has also a great undevelopment in education matters, 11,3 millions of people (at the age above of 15) are uneducated,to take an example 750 millions of people are uneducated in the world. 

which proves that religion it's not the main reason that countries grow their HDI constantly. rather one of the reasons that contributes to it.

religion CAN in fact change ideas and the man in general, basically if religion didn't exist we all could commit crimes beacuse "who would stop us?" "if we die we have no place to go,so why behave good if we are all just going to die?"  that's why religion it's really important,and i belive that maybe tehre's a god watching us and basically getting disapointed in us by how we behave here in this world.

that's all.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 8, 2019)

Morgenti said:


> i don't think religion changes a country in economic and death rates.
> 
> look at Brazil,although Brazil says that they are a laic State, roughly 64,6% % of their population is Catholic.
> Brazil in 5 months of this year had 17 thousands homicides in records (july) that's a lot of dead people in just 5 months and we're still in september.
> ...


If you're seriously only not going around murdering people because you're afraid of hell there's something very wrong with you.


----------



## Morgenti (Sep 8, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> If you're seriously only not going around murdering people because you're afraid of hell there's something very wrong with you.



that's not what i meant, i will never kill someone beacuse "i can go to hell", what i'm actually saying is that some people would just not commit crimes against other people beacuse of hell. (yes,there are people that sick in our twisted world) that's why religion can in fact ''save'' us from these type of people, i'm sorry if i didn't express myself right and made my reply somehow from a sicko.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 8, 2019)

Morgenti said:


> that's not what i meant, i will never kill someone beacuse "i can go to hell", what i'm actually saying is that some people would just not commit crimes against other people beacuse of hell. (yes,there are people that sick in our twisted world) that's why religion can in fact ''save'' us from these type of people, i'm sorry if i didn't express myself right and made my reply somehow from a sicko.


I'm skeptical there's that many of those people around.


----------

