People are fanatically religious

>meanwhile the catholic church was the biggest contributor to science in history

Religion is great you fucking fedora! (Except every religion that I don’t follow)

Holy fuck you're an idiot. Get the fuck off of this board.

>People lack complex computational tools
>"slow" scientific progress for thousands of years

>Suddenly computers
>biggest technological surge and improvement of living conditions in human history

Morality has also stifled progress. Let's throw that out too. Vivisect useless mouths, use inferior races as test subjects. Then we'd really live in paradise, right?

Logical fallacies are bad, except when I do it.

>>people try to ignore religion and focus on exact sciences
>>biggest technological surge and improvement of living conditions in human history

Surely you jest. People have been religious the whole time, you idiot. Atheism might be growing but it's still not dominant. I'm an Atheist as well but fuck me are you pretentious. Simply put, religion does not prevent scientists from being scientists and has not for some time.

The problem is that a belief in the "Sky Faerie" is not only symptomatic of mental illness but leads to great social harm. Religions are on the wrong side when it comes to moral issues. Religions will turn people into murderers, paedophiles. Incest is so common among religious people as to be assumed to be normal to them.

>posts underage anime girls on the internet

>people still reply to these anime baitposters

There are more single mothers, broken homes, interracial breeding, homosexuals, transexuals, and effeminate men than ever. Without religion the brainlets lose direction. Normalization of degeneracy is a side effect of a nonreligious society. Is it worth it?

>people die for religion
People also die for communism and other political beliefs. What's your point?

>What's your point?
People who believe in supernatural sky faries are exempted from making rational decisions.

>Homo Sapiens exist for hundreds of thousands of years
>no progress

>Lord and savior Jesus Christ walks the earth
>biggest technological surge and improvement of living conditions in human history

What about communists? What about niggers? What about democrats?

Prove that faith stifled scientific progress

Hard mode: without using galileo

The Enlightenment happened because of printing and then modern shit happened because of industrialization.

No Whataboutery please, why should someone who is mind controlled and believes in imaginary creatures be able to tell others what is right and wrong-

How did "faith" stifle whatever you think Galileo tried to do?

Not him, but I don't really see the point of this whole debate.
Pagans haven't been in power to morally dictate the lives of others for quite a while.

When you religious monkies can scientifically prove god exists, you have the right to conduct rational debate

There was conflict with the church about whether earth or the sun was the centre of the universe. This is usually the first example people jump to for backing up the dark ages meme.

Believing in religion helps societies cope with existential dread. Look at the increasing amount of suicides despite higher standards of living. Nihilism is a cancer. If believing in an afterlife helps cope with the fear of death, then good; it allows people to focus on being productive members of society. Just because you're able to accept the idea of nothingness, it doesn't mean others are able to cope with that. Is that difficult for you to comprehend?

When your only motivation to be a good person is a scary sky monster... you're a shitty person. Religion pollutes reality.

Christianity is diet socialism

>Rich people suck, they will never get into heaven
>Take care of other people by giving them your shit

You didn't respond to my post. I said religion helps people deal with existential dread.

But sure, religion can also act as a moral compass for people who would otherwise be horrible people. But what's wrong with that? If religion prevents someone from selling drugs to children in fear that they'll get sent to hell for it, then how is that wrong? There are shitty people. All you did is point out a benefit of religion.

>OP makes a retarded bait thread that everyone will fall for.

You lack critical thinking skills, that is why you believe in imaginary gods and think religion is good.

There was a few years when I believed in Santa Claus, too.

Galileo failed to make a case against the most important argument against heliocentrism: that if Heliocentrism was true then there would be an observable parallax shift in the stars location as the earth orbited around the sun. While later scientists were able to prove this, Galileo was not due to technical limitations on his equipment. He then went on to tell everyone he had proved it, was teaching students falsities, and slandering the rest of the scientific community and the Pope. They got sick of his shit, and put him under house arrest.
It wasn't even a "conflict with the church", he was against the academia of the time and his main supporters were clergymen. Up until he tried to use the Bible, of all things, as proof for his claims lmao. That's when the Inquisition got involved.

...

I wasn't saying Galileo was in the right

Again, you're not responding to the content in my post. Instead you change the subject and now you're attacking my intelligence so that you can rationalize your dismissal of my post. Fantastic mental gymnastics user, your critical thinking is way above me.

I'm not a religious person, but I see the irrefutable benefits of religion in society.

I'm just extrapolating on the situation.

Is this "scary sky monster" some sort of adversarial deity of nu-atheists?
I'm not well versed in these new age faiths.

I keep telling you theres no point believing in fake shit, its no good for you, and respond "oh but it is"

You sure sound religious

>You're stupid, that's why you think X

Do you actually think you are making good arguments or just shit-posting?

>biggest technological surge and improvement of living conditions in human history
Thanks to Christians, mostly.

Did religious people do witch hunts?
Inquisitions?
Crusades?
And you then say oh religion makes people better

Why would I need to argue against your irrational opinions?

Yes, but some meatball-filled tea cup defeats him in the end, I think.

""Religion"" doesn't make people better, Christianity does. After all, rabid atheism is just another religion attempting to replace Christ.

>I know nothing about the Inquistion and Crusades except what I saw in my favourite anime

Yes and? You could say forced lobotomies and sterilization were the results of science doesn't negate the progress that it gives.

>Did irreligious people do witch hunts?
>Inquisitions?
both done by atheist communist regimes
Witch hunts where not endorsed by the church and the inquisition is such a meme.

>García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700—about 2%—the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, it is likely that the toll was higher, keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed

>Crusades?
modern crusades to claim the middle east for democracy done by the secular regime
>And you then say oh religion makes people better

>Why would I need to argue against your irrational opinions?
Constantly calling other people irrational instead of just making an argument is why the fedora meme took off man. Are you arguing against religion or just Christianity since all your examples seem to refer to Chrisitianity?

>Witch hunts
Conducted in times of strife and mass hysteria, usually by peasants influenced by remnant pagan superstitions, or encouraged by secular authorities looking for scapegoats.
>Inquisitions
Literally nothing bad about them that comes from the Church. You could argue the Spanish Inquisition for some small iniquities, but they were beholden to the Crown.
>Crusades
This really has been discussed to death, even on this site.

>both done by atheist communist regimes
You do realise communism is an economic system, not a theology? or am I wasting my time here?

>Witch hunts where not endorsed by the church
Mellus malificarum is evidence to endorsement.

>modern crusades...done by the secular regime
Crusade is a religious war chum, your mind is so confused you seem to equate everything with religion.

This is why I call you irrational

>Crusade is a religious war chum, your mind is so confused you seem to equate everything with religion.
So invading and bombing people is ok when it's dealing with the material world instead of God?

>You do realise communism is an economic system, not a theology? or am I wasting my time here?
It's specifically anti-religion just like you are and it had worse inquisitions and which hunts than pre-modern christian societies had you dolt. The only atheist societies you can look at to consider your theory that we are better off with a rejection of religions are the communist regimes.

Bait thread. Sage and move on

>So invading and bombing people is ok when it's dealing with the material world instead of God?
Yeah, and its ok to kill non-christians if your a crusader isnt it?You can say that whilst I will call a murderer a murderer, thats the difference

I am a moral person and you are morally corrupted by your religion

Not all religions are equal, stop pretending they are.

>Mellus malificarum

>The Malleus professed, in part fraudulently, to have been approved by the University of Cologne, and it was sensational in the stigma it attached to witchcraft as a worse crime than heresy and in its notable animus against women.[3] Summis desiderantes affectibus was published as part of the preface of the book, implying papal approval for the work.[10] However, the Malleus Malificarum received an official condemnation by the Church three years later, and Kramer's claims of approval are seen by modern scholars as misleading.[11]

>implying anything has meaning.

>atheists
>rational
You jest

It's okay to kill Muslims invading Christian lands.

>I am a moral person
Only bad people proclaim to be good people.

>Did religious people do witch hunts?
The biggest witch hunt was conducted when an infestation of ergot (the fungus which is the base of LSD) affected a huge number of crops. People were getting food poisoned and didn't know what the fuck was going on. It was easy to blame it on mystical shit. It was hysteria. It's not a good argument against religion. Statistically speaking, the French Revolution resulted in a lot more deaths.

>Inquisitions
I don't know enough about the inquisitions to be able to comment.

>Crusades
What was wrong with Christians combating Muslims?

>And you then say oh religion makes people better
Religion generally acts as a moral compass for societies. At one point it was the only thing stopping someone from murdering their neighbour for grain.

>Why would I need to argue against your irrational opinions?
You don't need to do anything. Leave this thread if you're unable to calmly have a rational discussion. You have yet to refute any of my points as to why I believe religion is beneficial. Instead you just scream "IRRATIONAL!!!". How about you elaborate, using full sentences.

cuck

>Crusade is a religious war chum, you seem to equate everything with religion.
Religion isn't just belief in dieties and afterlife it is morals, traditions, ideals, customs, etc. Atheist and secular society has the second so it's valid to compare. Democracy is held in almost a religious regard in America which is why I compared the imperial excursions into the middle east to institute democracy to the crusades

>Yeah, and its ok to kill non-christians if your a crusader isnt it?You can say that whilst I will call a murderer a murderer, thats the difference
I didn't defend the crusades I don't know shit about them I only pointed that it's not exclusive to religion.

X1, 2, 3 happened in religious societies therefore religion is bad. This was your argument and we gave examples of it happening in secular and atheist societies so you need a new argument for why we should reject religion.

>im rational ur irrational x100
>mfw

>cuck

>Religion generally acts as a moral compass for societies.
Yes, it also acts as a magnet for pedophiles, I guess with your irrational religious mindset you will endorse this as a good thing.

>What was wrong with Christians combating Muslims?
Well for starters, they lost. Im sure there are other moral issues tied up there, but lets ignore them for the sake of your tedious monologue.

>I keep telling you X is true, so why don't you believe me reeeeeeeee
That user actually gave you fucking reasons. You have 0 refutations or arguments. Your thesis is "Religion is bad cause I say so. Just take my word for it." Then when you're given reasons as to why you're wrong you get upset and just insult them. If you believe they're wrong, then try deconstructing their arguments. If you're unable to, then consider the possibility that maybe you're actually wrong.

What "IS" exclusive to religion my friend is they can justify murder and war as good things. That is why I can make the claim that religion is fake poison for society.

>Yes, it also acts as a magnet for pedophiles,
Prove it. (scandals of child abuse do not prove that the church as more pedos than the general public which is what is implied by "magnet")

Being an uncle also acts as a magnet for pedophilia. Ban all uncles, I guess.
Same with male employees in Child Services, male politicians, judges, juvie guards, godfathers, step-fathers, regular fathers etc. etc.

Oh, homosexuals too.
Ban those as well.

Do you honestly and truly believe that war is only justified by religion?

>What "IS" exclusive to religion my friend is they can justify murder and war as good things.

>french revolutions viewed as good
>american revolution viewed as good
>civil wars viewed as good
>wars in middle east viewed as good

Welp looks like it's not exclusive to religion. Also murder is not synonymous with killing which is why the death penalty can exist or self-defense situations.

Is religion really the main cause of war and most suffering in the world? It's easy to see why atheists and anti-religionists might think that way when you hear of all the Islamic terrorists doing bad things and when you look at history and see the bad that Catholic Church did with the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts and the "persecution" of Galileo and others the Church deemed to be heretics. However a through examination of history reveals that that most of causes of wars and suffering are in fact secular, even the so-called "religious wars" that were The Crusades.

Let's first address the claim that religion causes most wars and look at the actual statistics throughout history to refute this nonsense.

In the book, The Encyclopaedia of Wars, the historian Alan Axelrod examines wars, revolutions and conflicts since 3,500 BCE. Recorded in the book are a total of 1763 wars and out of these wars, only 123 are classified as having a religious cause. That's less than 7% of all wars since 3,500 BCE so the remaining 1640 wars all had a secular cause.
At this point, I have seen atheists and anti-religionists claim that the percentage of wars caused by religion don't matter but the death toll does, ending with them claiming that the religious wars have caused more bloodshed and deaths than any other wars. This too is an erroneous claim that ignores the facts.
In the historical book, "Parallel Universal History, being an outline of the history and biography of the world. Divided into periods" Philip Alexander Prince on page 207 estimates The Crusades to have caused around two millions deaths. In comparison, the secular war of WW2 is estimated to have caused around 50 to 80 million deaths. The Crusades pale in comparison.

>Prove it
Yeah, there was 10 pages of it on google

>Muh morally correct religion must be >defended! Des vault Guys! ...guys??

It's just dialectics in motion, my friend.
More like:

>people still believe DIAMAT is wrong

And in truth, the Crusades - whilst having a religious premise - in fact were caused by political reasons and for power. The Seljurk Turks were expanding their empire towards Constantinople, with Emperor Alexios I fearing the advance, he requested aid from the Catholic Church and The Pope, who at the time, had strong influence across Europe. This combined with stories of Christian pilgrims being ill-treated and even butchered by the Muslims in the Middle East gave grounds for The Crusades but in fact the main reason was to stop the advancing Seljurk Turks.

The historian Giles Constable argues that while some soldiers joined the Crusade for religious reasons, others went for their own reasons including for personal gain.

In the book "The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World" Professor Roy Mottahedeh and the Greek Byzantinist Angeliki Laiou point out the same fact as I, stating that while the contemporaries of The Crusades reasoned that it was a religious war commanded by God, the war was in fact mainly due to the expanding empire of the Seljurk Turks who had already displaced many Christians from the Middle East. They also correctly point out that contemporary historians also recorded this fact.

>This view [crusades being a ideological driven war] is now common in works addressed to the general public, including popular presentations and movies. A leaflet distributed in Clermont during the conference held in 1995 to commemorate the summons to the First Crusade was headed “The Crusades—did God will it?” echoing the crusading cry of “Deus le volt.” It went on to ask “Can the Church memorialize the Crusades without asking forgiveness?” and called on the pope to deny that any war can be holy and that sins can be forgiven by killing pagans. According to this view, the crusaders were inspired by greed and religious fanaticism and the Muslims were the innocent victims of expansionist aggression. Many scholars today, however, reject this hostile judgement and emphasize the defensive character of the crusades as they were seen by contemporaries, who believed that Christianity was endangered by enemies who had already overrun much of the traditional Christian world, including Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and who threatened to take over the remainder. Almost all the historians and chroniclers of the expeditions that were later called the First Crusade considered them a response to the Muslim threats to Christian holy places and peoples in the east. They wrote from different points of view, however, and used varying terminology and biblical passages.

So yes while the Crusades may have been driven by an ideological cause, the actual cause of the war was in defence of land. These were not wars caused by religions. Pope Urban II's desire to help the Byzantine Empire was also driven mostly by his desire to increase the political authority of The Church and its power. The Catholic Church also used the wars in an attempt to usurp power from the Byzantine Empire and successfully did that in 1204 with the Siege of Constantinople which led to the fall of Byzantine Empire and emergence of the Catholic Church as the sole great power throughout Europe. This fact seems to be forgotten by the anti-religionists and atheists who fail to understand that at this time, The Catholic Church wasn't just a religious organization but a political one too, one that had powers over countries, kings and queens and one that wanted to build a united Church-state with The Pope as the head. This would become known as Christendom.

Do you have an argument or something?

>Yes, it also acts as a magnet for pedophiles
There are pedophiles in every single society. Look at Japan. They're not religious, but the market there for loli shit is through the roof. Oh but "Pedophile Priest!" makes for a very saucy headline, and you're a brainless consumer. Preists are expected to have extremely high standards, so retards don't understand that they're still human and that anyone can become a priest. Including pedophiles, which are everywhere.

>Well for starters, they lost.
Hold on, you're saying it would have been morally acceptable if they "won"? That implies your beliefs are all based on popularity. Which would explain your lack of rational thought. You just follow whatever the media tells you. Fuck drumpf and punch Nazis! Amarite?

So you can't read?

>(scandals of child abuse do not prove that the church as more pedos than the general public which is what is implied by "magnet")

Don't use Komari to shitpost, please and thank you

It's not really the fault of the Church's teachings or theology that they were infiltrated by pedophiliac buttpirates, they infest anything with hierarchy and a position of trust.
I guess you could blame the Church as an institution for being too forgiving on these beasts, and I would agree with you on that.

Proving that there have been cases of pedophilia in the church does not prove that the church is a magnet for pedos. Everyone knows of these cases, they've been beaten to death in the media for decades. You act like you've stumbled upon something profound when really you're just regurgitating what the media has been pushing. Are you capable of independent thought?

Too much text for our challenged friend to parse

Yes, oddly enough, secular states dont organise just wars, wars where "god" says its right, and the church forgives all your sins if you slaughter non-believers

They actually have wars for honest reasons

Crazy concept to the religious I know.

Except since the destruction of the old world order in WW2,the world has been statistically alot peaceful hasnt it?

Actually electricity is the real reason our tech progressed so fast without electricity we would still be in the industrial era right now. So even if religious people discovered electricity they would advance just as fast.

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

>predict his reply and tell him why that reply won't be accepted
>still post it

So this is the power of atheist rationality

Organised religion had a good run but there's a damn good reason it's on the decline, has far less political power than it used to and little hope of reclaiming said political power.
They can still give meaning to peoples lives, but the church should stay the hell out of politics.

>proven
>social science

>religious people are monkeys!
>religious people have no rights!
How very progressive of you, user. You're so much better than those evil religious people.

Actually dogmatic monotheism stop scientific research because the morons who follow the faith never update their "holy book" with new information. Romans prove polytheism doesnt hinder scientific advancement.

>>people are fanatically religious
>>no progress in thousands of years

>people are fanatically religious
>people have an immortal soul and eternal life in heaven

>people try to ignore religion and focus on exact sciences
>biggest technological surge and improvement of living conditions in human history but they go to hell

>few hundred years later
>science still hasn't solved immortality

Laughed my sides off

>define progress as the expansion of the capitalist liberal system
Oh well would you look at that religion is opposed to it.

Science already knows how to make immortal humans from embyros its just that its ethnically wrong to do so due to religious fucktards.