All religions are dangerous?

[_JAK]

In another thread JAK said:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

There is no evidence that all religions are dangerous, and the irony with this comment is that it is itself dogmatic and without reason or evidence.

Religion is just a presupposition like any other. Humans have a tendency to remain fixated in their presuppositions which tends to result in confirmation bias and the placibo effect. In my experience atheists are just as dogmatic and intolerant in their positions as most whacko fundamentalists. Religionists like to feel special and so do atheists. I've heard atheists here suggest that they are more advanced on the scale of human evolution, and that the res of the theistic world has yet to evolve from that primitive mental defect. Religionists simply believe that theirs will be a happier afterlife. Which is more arrogant?

Atheists often rely on ignorance to reinforce their presuppositions the same as any theist. For instance, those who insist on using the crusades and the inquisition to attack Christianity as a religion, when it becomes clear they have absolutely no background knowledge on either. They rely on myth. They rely on ignorance and their minds have already been made up, sans education.

So is this not a perfect example of the "destruction on one's intellect by replacing in order to with dogma not derived from reason or evidence"?

I often hear atheists say atheism isn't a religion, but it does carry all the same characteristics of religion. Most atheists I know do present their own "dogma" whether they like to believe it or not.

The various links in “Religion is Dangerous” demonstrate that reality. All religions rely on doctrine and dogma. In that, they are dangerous. In that, they oppose clear, transparent evidence and research. They rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance is dangerous. It leads to false conclusions not supported by evidence, facts, and skeptical review of claims.

dartagnan states:
Religion is just a presupposition like any other. Humans have a tendency to remain fixated in their presuppositions which tends to result in confirmation bias and the placibo effect.

That supports the proposition that religion is dangerous. One who relies on the “placebo effect” of a comforting religion rather than on the best medical care presently available is at risk and is endangered by religion.

dartagnan states:
In my experience atheists are just as dogmatic and intolerant in their positions as most whacko fundamentalists.

Let us see the evidence for the claim.

dartagnan states:
Religionists like to feel special and so do atheists.

Let us see evidence for the claim.

dartagnan states:
I've heard atheists here suggest that they are more advanced on the scale of human evolution, and that the res of the theistic world has yet to evolve from that primitive mental defect. Religionists simply believe that theirs will be a happier afterlife. Which is more arrogant?

Neither position can be sell defended. It appears a straw man attack. What is the evidence for the claims (multiple claims)?

“Arrogant” is a straw man argument. No one in this thread has claimed “arrogance.” The charge is irrelevant to the issue.

JAK stated:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Under “Dangers of Religion” and elsewhere, that was supported with evidence. It is supported here in the example that those who rely on religion or faith or prayer when confronted with the medical diagnosis of life-threatening disease are endangered by their religion.

“Atheism” is a topic which you raise. It was not raised in “Dangers of religion” or in “All Religions are Dangerous.”

dartagnan states:
Atheists often rely on ignorance to reinforce their presuppositions the same as any theist.

What’s your evidence for the claim?

It’s non sequitur to the posts “Dangers of religion” and “All religions are Dangerous.”

dartagnan states:
For instance, those who insist on using the crusades and the inquisition to attack Christianity as a religion, when it becomes clear they have absolutely no background knowledge on either. They rely on myth. They rely on ignorance and their minds have already been made up, sans education.

Have you read the links to the Crusades? Have you read other posts which address the issue of “Dangers of Religion”?

dartagnan states:
I often hear atheists say atheism isn't a religion, but it does carry all the same characteristics of religion. Most atheists I know do present their own "dogma" whether they like to believe it or not.

On the contrary, atheism lacks virtually all the characteristics of religion. See the post which compares soft atheism with hard atheism.

Few atheists attempt any defense of hard atheism. Those who do have a most difficult task. Religion makes countless claims and puts those claims into religious dogma that can be found in the many, many religious groups (denominations, sects, cults).

What are the dominations of atheism?

List of Christian Denominations

Religions of the World

JAK

[_JAK]

In another thread JAK said:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

There is no evidence that all religions are dangerous, and the irony with this comment is that it is itself dogmatic and without reason or evidence.

I agree not all religions are dangerous. Just the ones that teach untrue things are.

Are the Amish dangerous? I don't think so in 2008 America. However, if they became a majority they would be because their pacifism woul be unable to cope with Islamic terrorism (as Orwell pointed out about Gandhi and the Nazis).

The also drive buggies on highways, which could be considered dangerous.

HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

Does this mean anything? No. :)

Moniker,

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Their children are at risk (in danger) as a result of being denied the education for the culture of this time. Their increasing isolation makes close relatives reproducing a medical danger and threat to the Amish themselves.

You end your comment with:

Moniker states:
Does this mean anything? No. :)

Yes. It demonstrates that religion (religious practice and beliefs) are dangerous.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

The various links in “Religion is Dangerous” demonstrate that reality.

So the existence of web links talking about how X is true, must be proof that X really is true. What a stupid comment. You're embarrassing your fellow atheists if you think this is logical thinking.

All religions rely on doctrine and dogma. In that, they are dangerous.

You haven't even begun to mount the slightest intellectual case for this, so it remains a non sequitur.

In that, they oppose clear, transparent evidence and research. They rely on truth by assertion

Who is "they"? Again, you're babbling assertions left and right without the slightest evidence for your gross generalizations.

Such reliance is dangerous.

All human rely on their presuppositions to some degree. This is human nature, and is not something unique to theistic humans. Atheists are just as pigheaded in their belief that God doesn't exist, as some theists are.

That supports the proposition that religion is dangerous.

So all presuppositions are dangerous, or just the ones you don't share? You're epitomizing the meaning of bigotry here. Religion is just one of many possible presuppositions humans like to adhere to. There is nothing intrisically "dangerous" about religion, and you have done nothing to suggest otherwise. All you do is assert and draw upon your own uneducated perspective of historical events you clearly know nothing about.

One who relies on the “placebo effect” of a comforting religion rather than on the best medical care presently available is at risk and is endangered by religion.

Well, it is a fact that medicine doesn't cure all ailments. Not all drugs cure depressions, injuries etc. People in the medical profession are constantly amazed at how the human body recovers from injuries that were otherwised diagnosed as terminal.

Let us see the evidence for the claim.

You are that evidence. You're babbling away like someone who hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. You think that just because you have an internet connection, and know how to work your way around Google, that this makes you an expert on anything you search. You're a joke. You've read nothing of consequence. You've become indoctrinated by the fanatical atheists who operate as any other religion by trying to convert theists to their way of thinking, via cheesy web articles.

Let us see evidence for the claim.

Just look around, including the mirror. Atheists have told me on this forum that they are further evolved than the rest of theistic humanity. That right there shows you like to feel special. Religionists feel special because they think they have the real truth, and atheists are the exact same way. They are like the idiots who run conspiracy sites like Zeitgeist. If they can prove George Bush ordered the 9-11 tragedy, then that makes them special for uncovering a truth nobody else knew. Since atheists represent a tiny minority of humanity, it makes them feel especially special to think they know something the majority don't: God doesn't exist.

The fact that you cannot live and let live is indicative. You have to start arguments on the web because you want to feel special. You're more evolved. The rest of us are primitive.

“Arrogant” is a straw man argument.

No it isn't; it is a matter of fact. Atheists on this forum are particularly arrogant.

No one in this thread has claimed “arrogance.” The charge is irrelevant to the issue.

I made this thread, so I decide what is relevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no "straw man" in saying atheists are arrogant. You want to ignore all the characteristics in atheists that parallel fanatical theists, but I'm not, and I'll mention them when they suit the purpose of showing a double standard.

Under “Dangers of Religion” and elsewhere, that was supported with evidence.

Not it wasn't. All you did was post stupid links about teh crusades. Not only do you not understand anything about the crusades, you seem to think correlation equals causation. That is your main logical fallacy. I can show how people use all sorts of things to drive their violent behavior, but those "things" aren't the problem. The people are.

It is supported here in the example that those who rely on religion or faith or prayer when confronted with the medical diagnosis of life-threatening disease are endangered by their religion.

You're describing beliefs of not even one half of 1% of all theists, so how in the hell does this prove religion in general is dangerous? You completely ignored my comment that Bill Maher, as an atheist, believes vaccinations should be avoided. I guess atheism is "dangerous" too.

Have you read the links to the Crusades?

I've done more than that. I've read real books written by real historians who discuss this exact issue.You rely on wikipedi, written by God knows who, and a bunch of Muslim/atheist websites.

[_Moniker]

HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

Does this mean anything? No. :)

Moniker,

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

I was thinking that I was thankful that my children and I can go to their community, go to their farmhouses and see their beautiful furniture, watch them pump for water, sweep their hardwood floors, and be transported to a simpler time and world -- I love their culture! I actually am more fretful of 16 year old boys in those huge trucks (with massive tires) than a man in a buggy!

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

Well, I go into their world fairly often. There is one lady that redid my chairs a while back (recaned them) and I buy produce, furniture, and various products from them. They also come into the larger community and I see them at the hospital (they do go!), at the DMV (not sure why they're there?? -- IDs??), and all over the place. They are a part of this larger community and live in harmony with us that speed by them on a daily basis. I see no threat from them. The best part about purchasing from them is that instead of calling you they SEND YOU A LETTER! I LOVE IT! It just makes my day! I'm so easy to please!

That I need to be reminded that I need to watch out for obstacles on the road is a good thing!

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Why is that a risk? Other cultures reject our culture and I don't see this as a bad thing? So what if someone doesn't like our current culture? Are you talking about America, specifically?

Their children are at risk (in danger) as a result of being denied the education for the culture of this time. Their increasing isolation makes close relatives reproducing a medical danger and threat to the Amish themselves.

I see Amish all the time at our hospital. Their little babies look so cute in black with their lil black bonnets!

You end your comment with:

Moniker states:
Does this mean anything? No. :)

Yes. It demonstrates that religion (religious practice and beliefs) are dangerous.

Really?

[_EAllusion]

I think all unjustified beliefs are inherently dangerous. Having beliefs untethered by rationality presents a greater risk for interacting with the world in undesired ways and expends our mental resources on thoughts and actions that could be more prudently used elsewhere. Both make our progress and interaction with the world more dangerous. Since I think religion qua religion involves unjustified beliefs, I think religion is inherently dangerous. That danger can range from incredibly mild to apocalyptic. Of course, rejecting religion doesn't guarantee one will be reasonable in their thoughts and actions at all times anymore than rejecting alien abductions will. But it is a step in the right direction.

[_dartagnan]

I was thinking that I was thankful that my children and I can go to their community, go to their farmhouses and see their beautiful furniture, watch them pump for water, sweep their hardwood floors, and be transported to a simpler time and world -- I love their culture! I actually am more fretful of 16 year old boys in those huge trucks (with massive tires) than a man in a buggy!

Good point Monkier. Automobile accidents kill twice as many people as the flu, and far more than were ever killed by all the horse and buggys in history.

JAK's logical conclusion? Ingenuity is dangerous.

I believe there are health benefits from religion. People who are happier tend to be healthier, and people who are religious tend to do it because it brings them a sense of purpose and joy.

JAK's logical conclusion is that this has to be true since there are many web articles that say so!

http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/ ... -religion/
http://www.articleclick.com/religion-benefits.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ealth.html

[_huckelberry]

Sometimes it sounds as if people believe that religion causes wars. I find that so remote from what I see that it is a bit difficult to discuss.

I can try to state what I see as the causes of war. Am I misreading things?

War is a process where one group of people try to seize things like land or land use or product from some other group of people. It is also the resistence to these seizures. As people developed larger government to provide orderly police protection from seizures people found quickly that control of the government offers many opportunities to get advantage over others in use controll of resources and the products thereof. With that possiblity people fight to gain that political control and fight against the government which they view as unjust or unprofitable for them.

Runing a review of wars in history through my memory it is difficult to think of a war which does not consist of these secular and I might add entirely reasonable causes. Even the wars in the reformation which could be close to being religously based are deeply entwined in these objective and reasonable causes.

I might want to emphasis the reasonbleness of the causes of war. It suggests that simple reasonableness might be more or at least as useful for increasing war as decreasing it. On the other hand there are objective pluses for the state of peace. But those are always balanced by the considerations of improving justice, my way, or even just the reasonableness of increasing my money supply or providing exciting adventure in the quest for more prizes.

There are ways in which people use religion to pretty up the reasons they go to war. I have a hard time believing that if humans got rid of all religon that the human imigination would be unable to find other words to pretty up their desire for gain.

[_dartagnan]

I think all unjustified beliefs are inherently dangerous.

This is also a non sequitur. Dangerous activity due to belief is independent of the truthfulness of that belief.

In what way is religion dangerous?

Saying religious people do dangerous things, therefore religion is dangerous, isn't a logical answer.

That's no different from saying black people act dangerously, therefore black people are dangerous.

There is no evidence that religious belief hinders scientific progress. That's just a myth. In fact, the most important scientific advancements were born from the minds of theists, particularly Christians, who were operating on the religious assumption that God exists, the Universe exists, and that it obeys natural laws. From this premise it was assumed humans could actually learn and understand these laws.

[_JAK]

JAK:
Since religions do not agree on what is “right” or what is “wrong,” none is reliable.

dartagman:
This is so stupid. Scientists do not always agree, therefore all science is unreliable.

JAK:
All are dangerous as they substitute dogma and doctrine for investigative study. Therein lies the danger.
Your characterization is false.

dartagman:
Christianity essentially gave us modern science by itself, because unlike other faiths, it operates on the assumption that the universe is real, and that it is ruled by specific natural laws. It is no wonder, that the most important scientific discoveries were almost entirely Christian.

JAK:
For example, some religious views reject entirely modern, scientific medicine in favor of prayer only.

dartagman:
And Bill Maher says something very similar, rejecting the need for vaccinations. He is an atheist.

JAK:
Irrelevant

The Christian denominations which are pacifist (the Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, etc.) teach that all war is wrong. That’s a principle interpretation which they place on the New Testament teachings which they believe to be that of Jesus.

dartagman:
That's right, so how can you fault them for rejecting war? It doesn't matter what a theist does, you use their actions as evidence they are wrong in some convoluted way. By your own admission, they absolutely refuse to go to war because they are religious. Atheists have no reason to reject war entirely. But you have been using wars as your standard for determining "danger." So which is it? Are wars wrong or right? When is a war right or wrong?

JAK:
They encourage their youth to do alternative service as their service to their country rather than participate in the learning of better, more effective ways to kill other people.

dartagman:
Yes, but the same phenomenon exists in Sir Lanka, which has the highest rate of suicide bombing, completely unrelated to religion. Instead, it is a completely secular Marxist organization! These suicides are politically driven.

So I guess we have to abandon politics along with religion in order to steer clear from becoming a potential killer?

dartagnan states:

Quoting JAK:
Since religions do not agree on what is “right” or what is “wrong,” none is reliable.

dartagnan states:
This is so stupid. Scientists do not always agree, therefore all science is unreliable.

JAK:
In science there is major consensus. We find no division among scientists comparable to that found in just Christianity alone, let alone all the world religions. Your computer functions because applied science and consensus of scientists is at work.

That kind of consensus we find in medicine and virtually every branch of science today. It’s quite incorrect to contend that science and scientists are fractured as is religion.

dartagnan states:
Christianity essentially gave us modern science by itself, because unlike other faiths, it operates on the assumption that the universe is real, and that it is ruled by specific natural laws. It is no wonder, that the most important scientific discoveries were almost entirely Christian.

JAK:
The characterization is false

JAK:
Incorrect. Christianity persecuted Galileo and other thinkers who dared to set forward evidence which was counter to the dogma of Christianity.

See Galileo

See Victory of the church over Galileo

See Old Sacred Theory of the Universe

See the Heliocentric Theory

See the Retreat of the church after its victory over Galileo

See Creationism (distinctly a Christian dogma)

See the conflict of Christianity and science

See Origin Myths

These examples refute your claim that Christianity aided “modern science.” It did just the opposite.

JAK previously:
The Christian denominations which are pacifist (the Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, etc.) teach that all war is wrong. That’s a principle interpretation which they place on the New Testament teachings which they believe to be that of Jesus.

Dartagnan:
That's right, so how can you fault them for rejecting war? It doesn't matter what a theist does, you use their actions as evidence they are wrong in some convoluted way. By your own admission, they absolutely refuse to go to war because they are religious. Atheists have no reason to reject war entirely. But you have been using wars as your standard for determining "danger." So which is it? Are wars wrong or right? When is a war right or wrong?

JAK:
A misreading. The point is that religious positions are unreliable. Different Christian groups reach quite different conclusions.

An atheist might well reject war but not on religious grounds. An atheist might reject war on the grounds that no compelling evidence defends a particular war. The Iraq war might be a case in point. There were no "weapons of mass destruction" as claimed by the Christian Bush. The Christian Bush took the nation to war on false pretext. An atheist might well have rejected the Iraq war on grounds that no evidence supported Christian Bush's claims.

War is only one danger of religion. Religion is dangerous for reasons of ignorance. That applies to many areas not merely one.

The issue is that religion is unreliable in that it substitutes truth by assertion for a genuine search for fact, for evidence, and for reason. In that regard, religion is a threat, hence a danger. Religion is an assault on reason. That makes religion dangerous.

Faith-based conclusions are unreliable. “War” as you refer above is not the issue.

Politics also was not the issue.

JAK

[_huckelberry]

I suppose to prevent my ironic comments about the reasonableness of war from being off topic I should more direcetly address the subject of dangers.

I can agree with the idea which JAK and Allusion have stated that leaving reason and evidence is dangerous. I agree that these two things are necessary for making clear decisions. Our lives and survival require these two.

I think if relgion prevents or looses reason it becomes dangerous. If religion creates a point of view where observation and understanding of real events and how they work is no longer valued then it becomes dangerous.

I do not think religion in its essence does either of those things so is not dangerous. I can see that sometimes it in fact does those things. There are times it substitutes claims for reason and proposes that rejecting evidence is a virtue. I think relgion becomes dangerous when it does that.

It has been proposed that the basic premises of religoun are unproven so thinking with them is unreason. On that idea I do not agree. I think the existence of God is a belief based upon suggestive evidence which may be read in alternative ways. In that context faith in God is a working hypothesis. To be reasoble with a hypothesis one observes how available eveidence fits or does not fit with the hypothesis. One is not required to reject the hypothesis untill proven to the satisfaction of all. Of course in that context I respect the choice of other to operate with the hypothesis that there is no God. I hope they too can be reasonable with their hypothesis.