this is one of the reasons why religion is dangerous

[_Roger Morrison]

this is one of the reasons why religion is dangerous The topic title of this thread...

This does NOT, point-blank mean: 1. There are no other dangers. Nor, 2. That there are NO 'goods' in the practice of "religions", in the broadened interpretation Brother Coggins has suggested: as in the religions of Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, etc. Might as well include Bowling, Tennis, Fishing, Golf, and of course THE Great American devotion, Football...

To deny that "God" believing religions have no characteristics that can be seen as Totalitarian, Fascist, Authoritarian, and/or cruel and demeaning, is to be in as much denial of reality as it is for a person to not see the other side of the coin. Religious folks have been equally inspired to good-works, great and moving expressions of art, and countless acts of 'charity'.

Simplistically, 'religion' tends to bring out the "bad" and the "good" in folks. Don't let one, blind to the other. For the boy to be conditioned to offer his life for his church, is little different than for another to devote themselves to a life of poverty in service to humanity. Or, for another to strap-on a bomb. All in obedience to a religion's representation of "God". Atheists could do no such things in obedience to church teachings.

One then, can honestly wonder why 'they' do good, and/or bad things?? Warm regards, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

Ok,

Well said.

I do not think atheists, in general, are immoral nor do I think a disbelief in God necessarily leads to immoral behavior. But I do think those that really try to practice their religion, usually seem more constrained and are less apt to commit atrocities that those who have no belief in a higher power may be.

But after reading through this thread here is what I conclude. Humans of all walks of life can be really sucky towards each other and do incomprehensible things, religious or not. And that is about all there is to it.

Why didn't the boy have the blood transfusion? No one was trying to be malicious to anyone else. The problem in this particular instance is the uncritical acceptance of church authority and their teachings, by the guardian of the boy. And doesn't Christianity teach uncritical acceptance of authority? I.e. the test by God of Abraham. Doesn't Mormonism church leaders encourage uncritical acceptance of their rules and dictates. Some people do buy into the notion to the extreme that one shouldn't critically question church authority. Others pick and choose what they will accept and follow. Don't you think that by promotion that certain teachings are too sacred to even discuss that it promotes uncritical acceptance. How on earth does the church get people to wear "sacred garments" were it not for the church's control and influence over people such that they willingly accept rituals and practices which serve little to not value and in some cases can be detrimental as in the J.W. blood transfusion issue.

Yes I agree with you. I think that is what I meant when I said "well said."

[_Zoidberg]

I'm well aware of Rand's views on religion, but why I can't appreciate her critique of socialism because of this, I'm not sure I understand. George Riesman is an Atheist, and yet I still use and quote his work on economics and socailism extensively.

Because you are missing the point entirely. What objectivists dislike about totalitarian regimes is the same thing they dislike about religion. I sincerely have no idea why on Earth you think objectivist philosophy is even remotely close to supporting your convoluted views, by the way. Or at least the views you should be embracing as LDS. Peikoff, like I said, can hardly be considered an expert since he does not know the difference between socialism and communism, as I have already pointed out. As for Rand, well, she was Russian, so, hopefully, she knew the difference. I'm sure she objected to communism per se, as well as what was going on in the Soviet Union, because it just doesn't jibe with her glorification of egotism and denunciation of altruism. But you, as LDS, should be opposed to egotism altogether and be out doing various altruistic works instead of insulting people's intelligence on message boards. Given her philosophy, she had a good justification for opposing efforts to establish a communist society; you don't.

This is something I and other conservative intellectuals have been saying for decades.

ROFL!!!

Joshua Muravchik recently wrote a book on the subject called Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism. Socialism was "the God that failed" etc. Socialism is a secular religion, much as is environmentalism, another popular leftist alternative to serious, traditional religious commitment. Welcome to the club.

Oh please. If we use your very loose definition, then nearly everything is a religion. If so, then the thread about ways in which religion can be harmful can refer to anything, including socialism. Yet you pop in and start ranting and raving. You know perfectly well how normal people understand by the term "religion", and that it includes beliefs in the supernatural. What beliefs in the supernatural are to be found in socialism?

The hypothesis that control over the distribution of wealth may increase economic equality is much more sound than belief in a guy with a beard who is watching you 24/7. It can be objectively tested, and resulted from logical reasoning. You can criticize it and note that other variables come into play, like the fact that people tend to be greedy and selfish assholes, etc. But please explain to me how we can objectively test your assertion that God told Joseph Smith to have sex with other men's wives?

And here we have the ominous parallels. Notice how the things they object to in both religion and totalitarianism is the suppression of logic, reason, and individuality. It's pretty sad when your own sources turn against you, isn't it, Coggs? On a side note, although Peikoff hates liberals just like you, he hates conservatives even more and recommends voting only for Democrats and staying as far away as possible from Republicans who you seem to have a soft spot for. Why? Because Republicans tend to be religious.

[snip deluded drivel]

You haven't as yet made a case to close. Now, respond to Mr. Hitler please.

I'm sure that if Stalin and Hitler both liked sauerkraut, you'd jump right on it to point out the "striking similarities" between communism and nazism. The revolutionary spirit? Oh gosh, let me think... He could compare his spirit to the American Revolution and get his point across just as well.

Let's see, what else did Hitler say? That Marxism has ties to a democratic order which he thinks are absurd? Oh, you must think that the democratic order is really, really bad.

The simple fact that Hitler was extremely anti-communist thus far has escaped you.

[_Some Schmo]

Everything that needed to be said in defense of atheism has already been said, so there's no need for it to be reworded here. And anyone who doubts the general harm religion does is walking around with their eyes closed. I have no interest in trying to convince them otherwise. If you are the type of person who actually believes the world is better off with religion, you're already lost, and are certainly part of the problem.

I just came on to say, holy crap, I had almost forgotten how effin stupid the things coggins writes are. Dude, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest morons I've ever encountered (if, by some strange twist of fate, you actually think what you've written here). Unbelievable.

A large heavy object fell on your head at some point, huh? Born without a brain? Your three year old hack into your screen name? Just wondering how to account for your single digit IQ.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I'm well aware of Rand's views on religion, but why I can't appreciate her critique of socialism because of this, I'm not sure I understand. George Riesman is an Atheist, and yet I still use and quote his work on economics and socailism extensively.

Because you are missing the point entirely. What objectivists dislike about totalitarian regimes is the same thing they dislike about religion. I sincerely have no idea why on Earth you think objectivist philosophy is even remotely close to supporting your convoluted views, by the way. Or at least the views you should be embracing as LDS. Peikoff, like I said, can hardly be considered an expert since he does not know the difference between socialism and communism, as I have already pointed out. As for Rand, well, she was Russian, so, hopefully, she knew the difference. I'm sure she objected to communism per se, as well as what was going on in the Soviet Union, because it just doesn't jibe with her glorification of egotism and denunciation of altruism. But you, as LDS, should be opposed to egotism altogether and be out doing various altruistic works instead of insulting people's intelligence on message boards. Given her philosophy, she had a good justification for opposing efforts to establish a communist society; you don't.

This is something I and other conservative intellectuals have been saying for decades.

ROFL!!!

Joshua Muravchik recently wrote a book on the subject called Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism. Socialism was "the God that failed" etc. Socialism is a secular religion, much as is environmentalism, another popular leftist alternative to serious, traditional religious commitment. Welcome to the club.

Oh please. If we use your very loose definition, then nearly everything is a religion. If so, then the thread about ways in which religion can be harmful can refer to anything, including socialism. Yet you pop in and start ranting and raving. You know perfectly well how normal people understand by the term "religion", and that it includes beliefs in the supernatural. What beliefs in the supernatural are to be found in socialism?

The hypothesis that control over the distribution of wealth may increase economic equality is much more sound than belief in a guy with a beard who is watching you 24/7. It can be objectively tested, and resulted from logical reasoning. You can criticize it and note that other variables come into play, like the fact that people tend to be greedy and selfish assholes, etc. But please explain to me how we can objectively test your assertion that God told Joseph Smith to have sex with other men's wives?

And here we have the ominous parallels. Notice how the things they object to in both religion and totalitarianism is the suppression of logic, reason, and individuality. It's pretty sad when your own sources turn against you, isn't it, Coggs? On a side note, although Peikoff hates liberals just like you, he hates conservatives even more and recommends voting only for Democrats and staying as far away as possible from Republicans who you seem to have a soft spot for. Why? Because Republicans tend to be religious.

[/quote]

snip deluded drivel

You haven't as yet made a case to close. Now, respond to Mr. Hitler please.

I

'm sure that if Stalin and Hitler both liked sauerkraut, you'd jump right on it to point out the "striking similarities" between communism and nazism. The revolutionary spirit? Oh gosh, let me think... He could compare his spirit to the American Revolution and get his point across just as well.

Let's see, what else did Hitler say? That Marxism has ties to a democratic order which he thinks are absurd? Oh, you must think that the democratic order is really, really bad.

The simple fact that Hitler was extremely anti-communist thus far has escaped you.

Please reply in a cogent, intellectually substantive way to Mr. Hitler. Thank you.

[_Coggins7]

Everything that needed to be said in defense of atheism has already been said, so there's no need for it to be reworded here. And anyone who doubts the general harm religion does is walking around with their eyes closed. I have no interest in trying to convince them otherwise. If you are the type of person who actually believes the world is better off with religion, you're already lost, and are certainly part of the problem.

This is the philosophy of someone who uses Homer Simpson as his avatar. End of story.

I just came on to say, holy crap, I had almost forgotten how effin stupid the things coggins writes are. Dude, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest morons I've ever encountered (if, by some strange twist of fate, you actually think what you've written here). Unbelievable.

Well, I'm in the company of people like Von Mises, Von Hayek, Paul Johnson, Natan Sharanski, William Buckley, etc., so if Homer doesn't get it, forgive me if I'm not overly concerned...

[_Some Schmo]

Everything that needed to be said in defense of atheism has already been said, so there's no need for it to be reworded here. And anyone who doubts the general harm religion does is walking around with their eyes closed. I have no interest in trying to convince them otherwise. If you are the type of person who actually believes the world is better off with religion, you're already lost, and are certainly part of the problem.

This is the philosophy of someone who uses Homer Simpson as his avatar. End of story.

Oh look, the moron's judging people by their avatar. Shocker.

I just came on to say, holy crap, I had almost forgotten how effin stupid the things coggins writes are. Dude, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest morons I've ever encountered (if, by some strange twist of fate, you actually think what you've written here). Unbelievable.

Well, I'm in the company of people like Von Mises, Von Hayek, Paul Johnson, Natan Sharanski, William Buckley, etc., so if Homer doesn't get it, forgive me if I'm not overly concerned...

Why would you be concerned? You're a moron.

[_Zoidberg]

Everything that needed to be said in defense of atheism has already been said, so there's no need for it to be reworded here. And anyone who doubts the general harm religion does is walking around with their eyes closed. I have no interest in trying to convince them otherwise. If you are the type of person who actually believes the world is better off with religion, you're already lost, and are certainly part of the problem.

This is the philosophy of someone who uses Homer Simpson as his avatar. End of story.

Oh look, the moron's judging people by their avatar. Shocker.

I just came on to say, holy crap, I had almost forgotten how effin stupid the things coggins writes are. Dude, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest morons I've ever encountered (if, by some strange twist of fate, you actually think what you've written here). Unbelievable.

Well, I'm in the company of people like Von Mises, Von Hayek, Paul Johnson, Natan Sharanski, William Buckley, etc., so if Homer doesn't get it, forgive me if I'm not overly concerned...

Why would you be concerned? You're a moron.

That's pretty self-evident.

I don't know how this thread turned into the defense of atheism, but it seems typical.

Jason, if you want to talk about Hitler, Stalin, and sources of restraint and morality, please do yourself a favor and visit http://richarddawkins.net/archive,page1 ... ate-Points first.

A good collection of debate points that address these very issues.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I don't know how this thread turned into the defense of atheism, but it seems typical.

Jason, if you want to talk about Hitler, Stalin, and sources of restraint and morality, please do yourself a favor and visit http://richarddawkins.net/archive,page1 ... ate-Points first.

A good collection of debate points that address these very issues.

You can't find something from intelligent people? I have a justifiably low opinion of Dawkins' groupies.

[_Zoidberg]

I don't know how this thread turned into the defense of atheism, but it seems typical.

Jason, if you want to talk about Hitler, Stalin, and sources of restraint and morality, please do yourself a favor and visit http://richarddawkins.net/archive,page1 ... ate-Points first.

A good collection of debate points that address these very issues.

You can't find something from intelligent people? I have a justifiably low opinion of Dawkins' groupies.

Really? The average IQ of a Dawkins' groupie is much higher than that of an average MAD participant.

The better option, of course, would be to read the God Delusion and Moral Minds, but I have a feeling that Jason is not going to want to do that.