@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

I didn't sign off on this. It's an unauthorized biography.

>> ^Nebosuke:

Apparently from a Hitler biography published in 2001.
Hitler's Secret: The Double Life of a Dictator from German historian Lothar Machtan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews
Even going from the summarized information of this book, I have no idea where Bryan Fischer got his interpretation.


Urgh I looked up the book and critiques - Historians call it pure speculation, everyone else additionally call it homophobic sensationalism.

Even if Hitler was gay, it would not change anything in a rational person's mind in regard to either homosexuality or Hitler. Gra.

Thanks for pointing out the book.

Apparently from a Hitler biography published in 2001.
Hitler's Secret: The Double Life of a Dictator from German historian Lothar Machtan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews

Even going from the summarized information of this book, I have no idea where Bryan Fischer got his interpretation.

I was hoping he would expand on #2, skills for folks. He had the basics right. Your first five skills are based on your weapon (or weapons) of choice with duel wielders getting their first 2 skills based on their primary weapon and last 3 weapon skills based on their secondary. Thieves get their 5th based on the combination of their weapons.

You might say that this limits class variety, even if there are a heck of a lot of weapon options in the game. *Deep Breath*.. Axe, Dagger, Mace, Pistol, Scepter, Sword, Focus, Shield, Torch, Warhorn, Greatsword, Hammer, Longbow, Rifle, Showbow, Staff.

However this is not the end of your weapon customization because you also have perks that you can use to alter your weapon skills. So a Warrior who uses sword/shield will have the same 5 weapon skills but do to individual choices in how they customize them those skills might do very different things. The last 5 skills is based on both class and race and there will be plenty to choose from. The first is a heal (every class has one), the next three are class/race based skills that are not directly damage oriented but are cc or buffing (thus why there is no trinity in this one) and the last is a long cooldown alpha attack based on your class and race of choice. Combined with as I said, there being a lot of them to choose from and that you can alter them (and the 5 weapon based skills) with further customization as you advance through the game, this is going to make absolutely sure that when you meet another player of your class it isn't all but guaranteed that they have the exact same setup as you do.

Also there are other things that are going to make GW2 stand out that weren't in this list. A personalized storyline based on choices you make at character creation (see the choices we know about here: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Biography). As you play your story you'll make decisions that change the world around you in your 'hub' area (IE the changes affect your own storyline areas, not the major game world simply because some of those choices can mean the end of major characters in the game or the destruction of a village and you cant have people do that individually without having to reset those changes.

Last... no quests! Your personal story will be fairly similar to quests but much more story oriented. But the vast majority of the gameplay is quest free!

I was going to attempt to respond to as many items as I can but I decided to instead try something different.

There are two books that I think you should read and that I think you'd greatly enjoy. One is called "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and that other is called "Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks and Big Pharma Flacks" by Ben Goldacre.

Look into them a bit, read the descriptions. I recommend The Emperor of All Maladies because it is contains an extremely good account of the progress of the medical industry and it uses cancer research as a cornerstone. Though, I think you'll particularly like Bad Science, especially the section where the author goes into a scathing critique of where mainstream medicine has it's problems. It's actually a really funny book too.

Hell, I'll even buy Bad Science for you and have it shipped where ever you want.

Ok, I will say one thing in response to what you've said. I don't like the idea of a humanistic take on this issue because these problems aren't limited to humans. There is a range of mental conditions that humans experience that have been observed in other animals as well. In the case of mental illness, as in most cases, humans aren't special; we just think we are because we have the perspective that we're looking on everything from the outside.

The reason why I tear apart videos like that is because it's based on flawed reasoning, logical fallacies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science and scientific facts, and generally irrational modes of thought. The solution that I'm providing is that the video's topic, and the presenter are full of nonsensical ideas and that real evidence based research should be valued to a higher degree than some guy with his untested and/or unsupported hypothesis.

Yeah Mike Tyson was one of the most entertaining people to watch box.
In a time when boxing was all numbers, both boxers would go for the whole set of rounds
and it would be decided by points scored.

and Mike Tyson brings the fight back to boxing.
Man he was a thing to watch.
Not much height...not much reach...just power and ferocity.

Then he sort of got lost.

and lately i think he is balancing out.
I hope he is ...
I read a real decent biography way back written by another boxer.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Fire+%26+Fear%3A+The+Inside+Story+of+Mike+Tyson

As this video strongly implies, Carl Sagan was a recreational marijuana user. From Wikipedia:

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[47][48] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.

Also, I didn't notice anything "stagey" or otherwise about the video. I think that's just how she speaks...

Biography
Dr. Gerald Curatola graduated from Colgate University in 1979 and received his dental education from New York University College of Dentistry. After graduating in 1983, Dr. Curatola returned to join the teaching faculty in both the Division of Prosthodontic Science and Post-Graduate Department of Continuing Education from 1984-1995. Dr. Curatola also served on the hospital staffs of both New York University and Cabrini Medical Centers in New York City. As a researcher in dental materials and national lecturing clinician in the field of Restorative and Cosmetic Dentistry, Dr. Curatola has worked with many dental manufacturers including the Den-Mat, Kerr, Siemens, Brasseler, Colgate, and Oral-B Companies.

In a joint effort with the Jamaican Government and the Peace Corps, Dr. Curatola performed voluntary dentistry on the island of Jamaica, West Indies in 1982. He continued to volunteer his services to the Bowery Mission in New York City from 1985-1995. Since 1996, Dr. Curatola currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Pediatric Dental Fund of the Hamptons (PDF) whose mission is to provide voluntary dental services to indigent children on the East End of Long Island.

Dr. Curatola has maintained private dental practices in both Manhattan and East Hampton. In 1986, he established the Curatola Dental Group, a restorative and cosmetic dental practice in New York City. After settling his permanent residence in East Hampton, he founded East Hampton Dental Associates, a multi-specialty practice in 1999. Dr. Curatola continues to consult for several major dental corporations in the United States and Europe and lectures internationally on the techniques and benefits of new treatment modalities especially natural, therapeutic approaches to building dental health. He is Cofounder and Chairman of C.S.Bioscience, Inc., a dental biotech company which has developed and patented a nutritional- homeopathic oral care formula (NuPath TM Complexes).

Dr. Curatola has authored numerous articles on dentistry and health including a recent chapter on dental health for the book entitled, "Live Long, Look Young" by Lisa Trivell. Dr. Curatola is currently writing a book entitled "Smile for a Lifetime- An Integrative Look at the Role Your Dental Health Plays in Wellness and Longevity."

http://www.easthamptondental.com/curatola.htm

@spoco2
Ignore my crappy post above - I didn't take the time to even clarify what I was trying to say. And the links were just meant to illustrate that there were differing views - I didn't look at them very closely, and I didn't say I believed what they were selling.

And don't get me wrong. Most of the facts I have are "hearsay".
And yes, most of theorist's reasoning is utter crap - the flag thing especially

It's not that I'm fanatically saying it's false. You're right, I don't have the facts! I also don't have the background to sort through and divide the real facts from the bullshit. Although I have a love of science, physics and cosmology - I have no formal training. I read quite a few books on theory, plus biographies but I keep it light for getting lost in the mathematics. I also haven't read/found any good books on this subject.

You are also correct, so much miss-information is put out there by theorists. And maybe I've been jaded by lies to the point of not knowing who to trust in life. I'm not trusting the theorists, I'm just being cautious of everything I hear. I don't believe one over the other. I just choose to defer my belief for another time (does that even make sense?) I will continue to defer until either I have time to research it for myself properly or until I come across something by someone I can trust (by merit) that makes sense to me.

Am I stubborn? Yes, I am. I can't help it.
But don't worry, I'm not calling fake. I'm definitely NOT siding with the theorists. I'm just sitting back and watching, waiting for that one thing to spark, where I can say "Bazinga," that's it, that's the piece I needed".
Don't get too frustrated with me, I'm reasonable and I evolve
One day I'll find the time to locate the real facts.

I mentioned in another thread that indeed there is nothing to prevent someone from creating a separate site or blog about VideoSift. However that doesn't mean we have to do it here. We don't have to be a part of that. And even if we did post Sift history and member bios in our Wiki, that still doesn't mean that someone else won't do it on blogspot, wordpress, typepad, or wherever.

The cat's always been out of the bag. Someone could have been posting Sift history and member info elsewhere a long time ago. There's also nothing stopping someone from creating another video voting site. We can't control that either. But at least we can control what we do here, and I don't think we need to kick the hornet's nest in our own backyard.

Posting history and biographies here will not prevent it from happening somewhere else. Let's just not do it here in the first place. >> ^ctrlaltbleach:


On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

Kind of reminds me of someone.

Dali was fascist scum.

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Dali was fascist scum. http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.