this is one of the reasons why religion is dangerous

[_Who Knows]

Cause and effect. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and on and on. Had they had moral religious groundings would they have become what they became? I do not know for sure. However, the system Stalin supported was systematically atheistic. Are you arguing that this had nothing at all to do with his ease and comfort in slaughtering his fellow men and women?

You're the one making the argument here. I simply asked you to back it up.

On the other hand, we know that this kids religion was the direct cause of his death.

[_The Nehor]

...Why Me...

grrr!

Sorry......my mind always switches those.

Ok, apology accepted.

In answer to your question, no, it's not me. But I have a question for you. What on earth are you doing at place called boardgamegeek? Do you sit around and strategize about 'monopoly, or 'life' or 'sorry'? lol.

No, I sit around and strategize about World in Flames, Republic of Rome, Power Grid, Galactic Destiny, and many others.

[_dartagnan]

This is a ridiculous statement. I have the same concern for my fellow man as an atheist as I did when I believed in a higher power. You have no way of backing up this position.

And that may be true for you, but you have no way of backing your statement up either. We'll just have to take your word for it. But the fact still remains, nevertheless. History proves that atheists in power are more likely to rule ruthlessly.

The problem with your reliance upon ancient history to prove religion is harmful, is that you do not have an atheistic civilization to compare it to. Virtually everyone was a theist. Sure, some people killed in the name of religion, but many other showed forgiveness and mercy in the name of religion.

Those who killed in the name of religion, could have very well done the same or worse, if they had no religion. Religion is often used for political purposes. For example, the Roman Emperor Constantine used Christianity as a political tool. The Church itself had to bend to his will. Now you talked about the inquisition, but the fact is relatively few people died during the inquisitions and these forms of justice proved to be the most enlightened of all other systems being practiced throughout Europe at that time. Would an atheist ruler have come up with better system? Maybe. Maybe not. Until you provide an apples/apples comparison, you're just speculating.

Atheists have since sporadically risen in power and they have not shown us that their ways are less dangerous. Power and money corrupts. It just happens to be more prevalent in atheist rulers, and I think this has something to do with their lack of belief in a higher power. Without that belief, there is no consequence either in this life or the next.

And since we're on the JW subject, you should also remember that JWs refuse to murder, period. Under any circumstances, they refuse to serve in the armed forces. How does that make them dangerous to us?

[_dartagnan]

we know that this kids religion was the direct cause of his death.

This is not entirely true. Whatever health issues he had, were not caused by his religion.

Since when does giving up one's life constitute "danger" to society? It isn't as if he strapped a bomb to himself and went out in a blaze of glory, taking a dozen atheists with him.

People strapped to life support machines choose to give up their own lives all the time. Are they a danger?

Many Christians would die for their friends because that is what Jesus said. No man has any love greater than this. They believe they will be rewarded tenfold in the next life.

How many people have risked their lives to save complete strangers, because of their religion?

It seems the argument can be made that living in a society of Christians can be quite healthy.

Can you think of atheists who have risked their own lives to save others? I am not saying they haven't, I am just asking if you know of any.

[_silentkid]

And that may be true for you, but you have no way of backing your statement up either. We'll just have to take your word for it. But the fact still remains, nevertheless. History proves that atheists in power are more likely to rule ruthlessly.

Did you read my response to Jason's argument above? You're speaking about facts and proof as if history were chemistry or physics. You can't make the claim that atheism is the reason for a maniacal leader's behavior. Correlation does not equal cause and effect.

The problem with your reliance upon ancient history to prove religion is harmful, is that you do not have an atheistic civilization to compare it to. Virtually everyone was a theist. Sure, some people killed in the name of religion, but many other showed forgiveness and mercy in the name of religion.

Your problem with your reliance upon modern history to prove atheism is harmful is that you're not accounting for the confounding factors of population growth and technological advancements in warfare, both of which have an effect on the numbers argument. Sure, some people may have killed in the name of atheism (if that exists), but many others showed ethical concern for their fellow beings in the name of atheism (again, if that exists).

I'll skip the middle section of your argument for now, as I have to get back to work. For now I'll concede that many good things have been accomplished in the name of religion. I'm not arguing that. I'm sticking with the OP here. A religious belief led directly to the death of a child.

And since we're on the JW subject, you should also remember that JWs refuse to murder, period. Under any circumstances, they refuse to serve in the armed forces. How does that make them dangerous to us?

Actually, JW's can serve in non combat roles in the armed forces. I wonder if we could find any examples of JW's that have committed murder. That's not the topic of this post, however. The topic is that a religious belief held by JW's is harmful. It's a belief based on an interpretation of scripture. How can you defend that?

[_dartagnan]

You can't make the claim that atheism is the reason for a maniacal leader's behavior.

I never said that. I'm saying that it could very well be the case that an maniac feels more inclined to give in to maniacal tendencies because he has no belief in anything. This makes logical sense. It might very well be teh case that a religious conviction could have changed some of these maniacs for the better.

Your problem with your reliance upon modern history to prove atheism is harmful is that you're not accounting for the confounding factors of population growth and technological advancements in warfare, both of which have an effect on the numbers argument.

So you're saying that Stalin couldn't have killed millions if he were living during the 3rd century? This is absurd.

Sure, some people may have killed in the name of atheism (if that exists)

No I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm with sethbag on this one since I don't believe it is possible to do anything in the name of atheism. I'm saying that a lack of belief can be dangerous in some cases.

The topic is that a religious belief held by JW's is harmful.

Harmful to whom? Certainly not to you or anyone else. Do you really care about this boy or are you just looking to use his personal belief to club religion in general? This is why I take exception to this thread. Anything can be "harmful" if given the right circumstances. According to your logic here, an intolerance for pain must also be considered harmful to many who choose death over a life strapped to a bed and machines.

[_guy sajer]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid

There is no flaw in his logic. You're trying to use this instance to smack religion in general but you don't want to put this into its proper perspective. If you want to call religion "dangerous" then you have to be making this judgment by contrasting it with non-religion. If atheism is just as dangerous as theism, then you have no basis to call one more dangerous than the other.

I think that was Jason's point, and it is a valid one.

and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing.

We're not talking about religion in general, we are talking about the JWs. Jehovahs Witnesses represent a tiny fraction of the theistic world, and even in this case we are dealing with a boy's own free will to allow himself to simply die. I can think of many hypothetical situations where someone would prefer to die than allow something else to happen. Does that make the person dangerous?

I would rather die than watch my daughter get burned alive. Some would rather die than become a vegetable on life support. Does that make them dangerous, even though this choice would not be based on a religious principle?

At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

No, I don't think you understand the argument. You guys are constantly throwing up little anecdotes to smack down theism in general, but you never want to apply this logic that flies in the face of a violent and ruthless atheistic history. Atheistic dictators, by percentage, have a far worse history of violence than do theistic leaders. But you don't want to acknolwedge this because it disrupts your worldview whereby the atheist represents an enlightened and evolved mind while the theist is just a step above a cave man.

This argument doesn't work because atheist despots like Stalin or Hitler (the two oft used examples--though there's mixed evidence as to whether Hitler was atheist) don't commit atrocities in the name of atheism. Stalin, for example, didn't starve millions to death via forced collectivization out of some imperative motivated by a lack of belief in God. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews because his atheist principles required it. Pol Pot didn't commit near genocide because this followed by his lack of belief in God. Hitler did what he did due to a rigid, dogmatic political/social ideology that had nothing to do with being atheist (if he were).

They were motivated by other dogmatic or selfish beliefs--that they were atheist is somewhat coincidental and beside the point. The broader problem is dogmatic belief, whether that is religious or political (or some other form). This boy didn't die due to a belief in God but due to belief in a dogmatic religious system.
In contrast, the inquisition was directly motivated by dogmatic religious belief, as were the terrorist attacks on 9-11, etc.
Yours, and Jason's, arguments are widely off the mark.

[_Who Knows]

What timing!

Pope Benedict, in an encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.

[_John Larsen]

I have seen no convincing evidence that Pol Pot or Hitler were atheists. They left no writing on the topic. Why assume this?

John

[_guy sajer]

The lack of a threat, if you will, of punishment from a just and holy God, or the lack of morals and restraints that religion can provide does lead to the maniacs becoming what they become. A good thing to do? I am not sure it says that. But it certainly shapes the way the atheist dictator operates.

Do you have anything to back that up? Who says lack of belief in god leads to the maniacs "becoming what they become"? Could it be, that they're simply just 'maniacs'? Like any other maniac - religious or not?

Cause and effect. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and on and on. Had they had moral religious groundings would they have become what they became? I do not know for sure. However, the system Stalin supported was systematically atheistic. Are you arguing that this had nothing at all to do with his ease and comfort in slaughtering his fellow men and women?

Yes.

He actually trained to be a priest but gave it up.

He was a murderous despot. His belief in God, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it. It simply does not follow that a lack of belief in God equates with greater "ease and comfort in slaughtering" one's fellow man and woman. This is a complete non-sequitor.