skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for dandv

( dandv )

Comments made by dandv

Does It Pay To Believe?

Here's a pertinent link from Business Week about paying and (not) believing:

http://www.businessweek.com/interacti... - Top 50 philanthropists.

Note that of the top 4, three (Buffett, Gates, and Soros) are not religious.

These people gave away between 23% and 78% of their net worth (way more than the Christian 10%) to health, education, open and democratic societies, and humanitarian causes.

March 11, 2011 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does It Pay To Believe?

@Missionaccomplished: again, the old argument that Wikipedia wouldn't be a reliable reference. If you actually visit the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi...), you'll it has a citation, to - surprise - a BOOK!

If people would actually look up their own arguments before throwing them in a debate, we'd make much more progress.

March 11, 2011 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does It Pay To Believe?

For comparison, here's a documented list of God's killings mentioned in the Bible, each with the corresponding verses. Total, 25 million:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.c...

March 10, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does It Pay To Believe?

Regarding "If I had to pick a winner of the debate it was D’Souza. His most compelling point focused on secular atrocities, such as those committed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao."

The Hitler argument is another old flawed one. Hitler was a Christian, and his racist agenda was a religious one. He wrote:

*"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."*

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi...)

There were tens of millions of people killed by both secular and religious figures, no doubt. But while tens of millions were killed *in the name of religion*, the number of those killed *in the name of atheism* is vanishingly small.

March 10, 2011 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does It Pay To Believe?

[continuation]

Here's the summary:

Tom, when you say,

"I’m a believing Christian and I find most atheists aggravating, not because of what they believe but because they insist their opinion is so perfectly rational. It’s not. The conviction that there is no God requires just as big a leap of faith as does the belief in God",

are you aware this is very old and very tired, and very debunked argument? Read this, for example: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/20... . The summary is that atheism is primarily *lack of belief* in a God, which is as reasonable as lack of belief in Tooth Fairy. There is no evidence for either; instead, there's plenty of evidence against God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being - look up the "Argument from Evil", http://www.infidels.org/library/moder.... Why don't you answer that yourself when you say,

"Do the sufferings of children, and the unanswered prayers of their parents, mean there is no God? To Dan Barker, apparently they do. His statement was a telling glimpse into his anger with what he came to see as an uncaring deity, and then as a deity that did not exist."

Anyway, this debate should not even happen. Its a moot point. In 2005, the KripkeCenter of Creighton University published the results of an extensive study on the correlation between religiosity and societal health, titled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" - http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2...

Here's the summary:

"only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted."

March 10, 2011 at 12:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does It Pay To Believe?

Tom, when you say,

"I’m a believing Christian and I find most atheists aggravating, not because of what they believe but because they insist their opinion is so perfectly rational. It’s not. The conviction that there is no God requires just as big a leap of faith as does the belief in God",

are you aware this is very old and very tired, and very debunked argument? Read this, for example: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/20... . The summary is that atheism is primarily *lack of belief* in a God, which is as reasonable as lack of belief in Tooth Fairy. There is no evidence for either; instead, there's plenty of evidence against God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being - look up the "Argument from Evil", http://www.infidels.org/library/moder.... Why don't you answer that yourself when you say,

"Do the sufferings of children, and the unanswered prayers of their parents, mean there is no God? To Dan Barker, apparently they do. His statement was a telling glimpse into his anger with what he came to see as an uncaring deity, and then as a deity that did not exist."

Anyway, this debate should not even happen. Its a moot point. In 2005, the KripkeCenter of Creighton University published the results of an extensive study on the correlation between religiosity and societal health, titled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" - http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2...

Here's the summary:

<<only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.>>

March 10, 2011 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )