Sriram,
Everything has its positives and negatives, including science. Same is true of you and me.
That’s debatable, but as it has no relevance to your latest error in thinking (survivorship bias) let’s try at least to focus on that.
Its a question of what we want to see. Some people see mud, some see the stars.
No it isn’t. What we want to see is confirmation bias, the enemy of what's actually there to see. It’s the same basic mistake you made when you substituted anecdote (“I have seen some people who…”) for data (“here is the meaningful evidence that…”).
With about 5-6 billion religious people in this world, we can see that religion has been mainly good, healthy, unifying, peaceful, offering hope and meaning to life. A few thousand fanatical people get violent doesn't mean religion is itself bad.
You really, really struggle with even basic reasoning don’t you. We can’t “see” that at all, at least not unless you find some way of turning correlation into causation, and of measuring the
difference in outcomes in these indicators between religion vs no religion.
That's just the negative way some of you people have been programmed to think.
No, it’s actually the very positive way actual thinking provides rather than the non-thinking in which you specialise. Some advice for you (which you will I’m sure ignore): you’re clearly not a thinker in any meaningful sense, and nor if your continued avoidance of the mistakes you make is anything to go by are you particularly honest. These are matters for you. What you might want to consider though is to stop parading your non-thinking on a blog – publicising it really isn’t helpul to you.
