Dangers of Religion

[_quaker]

Megalomaniacs that come to power will do so using whatever vehicle is available to them. Often times, that vehicle is religion, but other times it may be patriotism (such as the Roman conquests), feigned threats (such as our current war with Iraq), riches (the Conquistadors), etc.

I think this is a point of view worthy of consideration. Any structured organization that has a leader and a heirarchy is at risk of the leader abusing their power. Most of the religious world seems to be relatively calm the past few centuries in comparison to political movements and ideologies. Maybe the power hungry dictators are seeking another medium to use to gain power?

[_truth dancer]

Hey BC,

If an honest and nonrespector of persons God exists, then there can only be one God-authorized denomination/religion/philosophy

Why do you think this?

(Other than the fact that it is what the LDS church teaches). ;-)

~dancer~

[_antishock8]

Most of the religious world seems to be relatively calm the past few centuries in comparison to political movements and ideologies.

This is a wildly unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have any information that might back up such a claim? The Holocaust, Armenians, Darfur, Roman Catholic complicity in Rwanda, Muslim Jihadist murders throughout the world, etc... Millions have perished with either the active or tacit support of organized religion and ideology.

[_dartagnan]

This is a wildly unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have any information that might back up such a claim? The Holocaust, Armenians, Darfur, Roman Catholic complicity in Rwanda, Muslim Jihadist murders throughout the world, etc... Millions have perished with either the active or tacit support of organized religion and ideology.

You're also describing a part of the world that is still living in the dark ages, under strenuous economic and political stress. The cause of the genocides in Africa can hardly be attributed to religion, and if you're referring the the Bishop I think you're referring to, he had been acquitted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/791907.stm

[_antishock8]

This is a wildly unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have any information that might back up such a claim? The Holocaust, Armenians, Darfur, Roman Catholic complicity in Rwanda, Muslim Jihadist murders throughout the world, etc... Millions have perished with either the active or tacit support of organized religion and ideology.

You're also describing a part of the world that is still living in the dark ages, under strenuous economic and political stress. The cause of the genocides in Africa can hardly be attributed to religion, and if you're referring the the Bishop I think you're referring to, he had been acquitted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/791907.stm

No, I wasn't pointing out anyone in particular reference Rwanda. I was referring to the institutionalized evil shennanigans the RC church perpetuated in the region (no I don't feel like dredging up links).

Back to the point, ie, the dangers of religion. I don't think religious fanaticism can be traced to depressed economic and political stress. I think those are red herrings. When dealing with the dangers of religion I think we would do better to actually understand what THEY are telling us rather than what WE would like them to be. Here's *Stephen Coughlin's master thesis on Islamic extremism if you're interested:

http://www.strategycenter.net/include/d ... &docType=0

The point that I'm trying to make is that I agree with you and other that extremism/fanaticism is part and parcel to human nature. From sports to democratic caucauses, human nature demands that we choose a side and throw in with it. That's not under dispute. However, is religion dangerous? This is a legitimate question to ask. If you have a religion that openly advocates the submission of everyone to its god's will, then yes, it can be considered very dangerous. If you have a religion that subordinates people to a thuggish theocrat like Brigham Young, then yes, religion can be dangerous. In other words, if the religious meme advocates in one form or another domination of others, ostracization of apostates, and the shunning of heathens/infidels then there's no question that it is dangerous. If the program we're using exploits human nature to its advantage and then exploits human beings to other human beings' advantage, then there's no question religion is dangerous.

Same goes for politics.

Same goes for social constructs.

I just think it's too easy to excuse a bad meme because calling a spade a spade, quite simply, makes a person feel uncomfortable sometimes. On a personal level I have no issues with admitting that certain aspects of religion, politics, or social constructs can benefit a person, or a society. But I don't think we should dismiss causality for ambiguity. That's suicidal.

*Ibn Wariq is another author I highly recommend. The parallels between his apostasy from Islam and the apostay ex-Mormons go through are very similar, as are the familial ramifications. It makes you wonder if Joseph Smith had been born 500 years earlier what Mormonism might have become...

[_JAK]

dartagnan quoting JAK:
We do not need to go back in history to the “Roman conquests” to have clear, precise link of religion (Christianity) to the mass killing of other humans while invoking God’s blessing. To think otherwise is self-deception.

dartagnan:
Then why do you? If it is truly such common phenomena, then why do you always have to run back to 10th century to get your "proof"? (bold added for emphasis of misstatement)

JAK:
A misstatement. We can look at the Bush policy and find links of religion to war. “Axis of evil” was a Bush use of religion coupled with conservative Christian fundamentalism which prompted the final line of Bush speeches: “God Bless America!”

That signature line was an exclusive use of religion applied to one country.

Hitler (a Roman Catholic) exterminated millions Jews While Pope Pius XII remained silent.

Indeed, we need not go back to the Crusades. The importance of the Crusades is that they established Christianity to be a barbaric religion. We are civilized now. We kill tens of thousands from the air with bombs based on false claims.

If G.W.Bush is anything, he is a Christian fundamentalist and President of the United States.

Your quite misinterpreting.

dartagnan:
You think the inquisition and the crusades are your aces in the hole, but this is only because you're ignorant on both topics.

JAK:
While the Crusades are great historical importance, they are but one example of the “Dangers of Religion.” (See other posts in which this is addressed.)

dartagnan:
You're a know-nothing who represents exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Atheists can be dangerous with ignorance just the same as any theist. You're spouting ignorance and hate, yet we're supposed to believe you're not passionate in your atheism?

JAK:
Ad hominem is no refutation for the examples of “Dangers of Religion.” That is the case in point.

dartagnan:
The real danger is fanaticism. Bad people will do bad. If they are religious, they will use their religion as a catalyst.

JAK:
The comment is no refutation regarding the “Dangers of Religion.” You’re correct groups and individuals “will use their religion as a catalyst.”

dartagnan:
Humans kill people, not religion, not politics.

JAK:
A flawed line of argument. Guns don’t kill, people kill, (so every 1st grader should have a gun and be trained in how and when to use it) It’s an absurd argument.

Humans have historically killed and used religion as the basis justifying that killing. But the danger is far greater than merely killing.

The principles here stands unrefuted:

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

“Historically, these two religions have been responsible for perhaps more wars and deaths and torture than any other.”

Nine links to documentation regarding the atrocities of the Crusades.

Six links to documentation regarding the atrocities of Islamic fundamentalism.

No refutation of points, issues, or evidence.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

While the Crusades are great historical importance, they are but one example of the “Dangers of Religion.” (See other posts in which this is

You can't seem to understand that the crusades represent no "example" in yoru favor. I guess you're not interested in debating the crusades?

Gee, what a shock. And all that tough talk about being the reasonable atheist with facts and reason on your side.

I called your bluff. We both know you have no education on this subject.

Ad hominem is no refutation for the examples of “Dangers of Religion.” That is the case in point.

What I refuted was your non sequitur conclusions from your "examples."

You’re correct groups and individuals “will use their religion as a catalyst.”

I'm also correct that people will use whatever is at their disposal. That could be loyalties to frats, political groups, or any kind of social club. Religions only represent one kind of social cluster. You don't seem to understand much about psychology or sociology. You want to take advantage of the fact that most humans are theistic so you can pull an exercise in reductionism and claim the lowest common denominator must identify what's "dangerous." This will only fly for idiots who don't know how to properly deduce facts.

A flawed line of argument. Guns don’t kill, people kill, (so every 1st grader should have a gun and be trained in how and when to use it) It’s an absurd argument.

It isn't an argument, it is a point of fact. People do kill people. Guns kill people only when people use it. Sometimes it happens by accident, but in most cases death by arms are intentional, and if a gun wasn't available, the assailant would find other means to kill. Likewise, if religion is a convenient tool, it will be used. Not by just any religionist, but by a person who intends to enact violence; a decision that may or may not be independent of religious belief.

Again, in all your talk about science, you're avoiding the most relevant field: psychology. The science of human behavior. You want to sweep it under the carpet, ignore the entire idea of social behavior within groups, the effects of depression, drug abuse, and anything else unrelated to religion.

Humans have historically killed and used religion as the basis justifying that killing.

So what? "Historically," humans have done an endless amount of stupid things that are dangerous. The fact is Christianity has played no role in any of the major wars of the last two centuries. Instead it was about ecomonic/political struggle. So by yoru logic, the only safe route is anarchism. No governments, no wars.

But the danger is far greater than merely killing.

Oh? So let's see where the goal posts will be moved this time. Explain for us how it is "dangerous" to believe in God.

The principles here stands unrefuted:

Stop quoting yourself like you're a witty philosopher. Calling your quipish comments "principles" that defy refutation is almost as funny as it is stupid. It is your job to substantiate your claims. You haven't done this, nor can you.

Nine links to documentation regarding the atrocities of the Crusades.

Wow, internet links!! Documentation he calls it!! Yes, that's the form of research our esteemed cyber scroller has in mind for us. And all this time we were led to believe he was interested in scientific fact, established by reason and critical thought.

No refutation of points, issues, or evidence.

On the contrary, I have challenged you to debate the crusades as an example of "Christian" danger. You keep skirting the issue because we both know the scope of your knowledge on this subject is narrow

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Nine links to documentation regarding the atrocities of the Crusades.

Wow, internet links!! Documentation he calls it!! Yes, that's the form of research our esteemed cyber scroller has in mind for us. And all this time we were led to believe he was interested in scientific fact, established by reason and critical thought.

Umm, we are communicating through the internet. Doesn't it make sense to use references on the internet? I didn't realize internet links were a bad thing. Were you expecting him to mail you books? All this time when someone says "CFR" I assumed they wanted something they could read on-line. I guess you learn something new every day. Even if you are suspicious of something because it is on the internet, typically they cite their sources and you can go to the library to look it up.

by the way, I tend to agree that while some wars have been waged by leaders in the name of their religion, religion isn't necessarily the cause of war. People do bad things, and then find something to justify it. Leaders rally their followers any way they can, and if playing the "our religion is better than their religion" card works, so be it. The root cause of war tends to be economic and territorial rather than religious. However, the current crop of religious nutcases in the mideast appear to be acting for religious reasons. It seems to me if we sent in some special forces to take out all the clerics, it could only help the situation over there.

[_dartagnan]

Umm, we are communicating through the internet. Doesn't it make sense to use references on the internet?

Sure, but he is pretending he has proven something by merely posting links. He doesn't offer anything from any of the links, he just provides links. He doesn't answer the question about what scholarship he has read on the subject... because he has links. He thinks he has shoved burden of proof on my side because, well, he has links. He doesn't care who wrote this material, because what's important to him is that they're links.

Were you expecting him to mail you books?

I am expecting anyone who claims to be basing a position on facts and reason to at least speak intelligently about historic issues like the crusades, with something more substantial than, you guessed it, "links.!"

All this time when someone says "CFR" I assumed they wanted something they could read on-line. I guess you learn something new every day.

You could type up a citation from a book written by a historian, or you could at least admit the fact that you really don't have an educated perspective.

Even if you are suspicious of something because it is on the internet, typically they cite their sources and you can go to the library to look it up.

Well, JAK is apparently too lazy for even that. You see, he has links. Not just one, but many. He wants to substitute quality with quantity. Because he posts links, it is therefore my job to go sifting through them in order to figure out what parts are supposed to make his case.

Remmeber, this coming from the atheist who relies on facts, logic and reason.
Links!!

[_huckelberry]

Setup,your last comment contemplated murdering thousands and thousands of people. Is that the peace we should expect from removing the hinderace to reason that is religion?