All religions are dangerous?

[_huckelberry]

Adding a couple of thoughts about dangerous religion. I think it is fairly clear that in human history there have been some specific ideas which have been dangerous.

It has been believed that eating your enemy is a means of gaining spritual strenght. It has been believed there was spiritual power to be gained from human sacrifices, the more the merrier.

It has been believed that Gods purpose, spirtual reality, seeks the supremacy of one group over all others. I do not think these dangerous ideas can be eliminated by saying religion is unreasobale. I think there is a reason with in religous experience and that path is the counter to the dangerous ideas.

Hmm, then I realize that there are objective forces which counter bad religous ideas. The ideas associated with cannablism, onece widespread in human experience, have been counterd historically by the needs to develope positive diplomatic relationships with neighbors. This is not a bad example of the relationship between religious ideas and reason.

[Guest]

This is also a non sequitur.

Dangerous activity due to belief is independent of the truthfulness of that belief.

Not only do I think this is completely wrong, it doesn't even seem to understand my point. Our actions are necessarily tethered to our beliefs. When we form a desire about how the world should be and act upon it, we must inform our action with our best understanding of the world. Since our best understanding of the world is properly informed by the use of reason, abandoning it makes it riskier that we will behave in ways contrary to what we desire. Further, when we spend time and effort believing in things that are unjustified, due to our mental resources being finite, we waste energy that could be spent bettering our understanding.

See W.K. Clifford's Ethics of Belief. You don't have to buy his deontology or more narrow evidentialism to see the broader point. Of course, you could accept the point that unjustified belief is risky without abandoning religion. You just have to argue that religious belief isn't unjustified. Huck above is attempting to argue he is justified as using belief in God as a valid "working hypothesis." It's just that I think such efforts are terribly, unforgivably flawed.

[_GoodK]

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.

Religious people believe and want us to believe that their scriptures are so visionary and essential to humanity’s needs and they could only have been written with the help of an omniscient deity. All an atheist does is consider this claim, read the books and declare the claim to be absurd. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen Henry Roberts

[_dartagnan]

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.

Well, it depends on the field of science. And who is "we"? Why do you pretend to know anything when it becomes patently clear you're just another internet hound. If Farrell Till from infidels.org doesn't say so, then it probably isn't true?

Your computer functions because applied science and consensus of scientists is at work.

As a computer engineer, I know more about why my computer works than you do. I did build it, after all. But modern computing would be nothing without the scientific milestones by Christian mathematicians/engineers like Blaise Pascal, Charles Xavier Thomas, Charles Babbage, von Neumann, etc.

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.

I recommend reading Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. He demonstrates that scientific consensus is based on paradigms, and paradigms often shift. Scientific consensus is not about logic and facts alone. A classic example would be the former worldview of Newtonian physics and the shift to the Einsteinian Relativistic view.

Incorrect. Christianity persecuted Galileo

You're really going to pull this card out? I said your generalization is false and you think you can substantiate a generalization by providing one single example? I mean even if I grant you your example, you still haven't justified your generalization. Apparently you don't know what "generally" means. It essentially means, "for the most part." So you ignore hundreds, if not thousands of instances where Christianity has produced environments conducive to scientific advancement, yet for agenda purposes you focus on a single event in history, which you clearly know nothing about anyway. All you know is what you read from your favorite anti-religion website, wet up by the Mississippi redneck, Farrell Till.

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

No, you provided no "examples" at all. All you provided was a slew of weblinks, most of which direct us to the Mississippi idiot.

Regarding Galileo, Pope Urban VIII was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Pope.

Galileo, who is often considered the Father of modern science, was considered a heretic only because he was a Christian. Non-Christians didn't meet the status of heresy. Galileo also never argued that his discoveries were at odds with scripture. Instead, he maintained that people in the Church were misinterpreting scripture. Heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, so the issue wasn't Galileo vs. the Church. It was Galileo vs. some people in the Church who didn't like him. They tried to turn the Pope against him because his science alone couldn't do it. Galileo did this inadvertently when it appeared he was attacking the Pope publicly. Even though he wasn't, his enemies in the Church used this incident, and their politics, to get the Pope to move against him. Galileo was never executed, he was confined to house arrest.

A misreading. The point is that religious positions are unreliable.

No, that wans't your point at all. You're shifting yoru ground already. Your point was all religions are dangerous. You can't say or do anything to substantiate this bigotry, and all the cut and paste jobs in the world aren't going to help you.

Different Christian groups reach quite different conclusions.

And scientists often reach different conclusions. Should we abaondon science based upon this axiom? Your appealk to consensus won't save you because there is just as much consensus in Christianity that "Jesus saves" as there is in science among scientists.

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.

You're avoiding your problem by recreating easy examples for yourself. You at least admit some religious activity precludes people from behaving violently. That in and of itself is not "dangerous." Remember, from the very beginning your idea of "dangerous" was built around wars and killings. Now that you have already admitted some religions preclude such activity, you have to move the goal posts back and reinvent your notion of "dangerous."

The fact is an atheist would be violent in situations where some of these religious people would never act violently. In such cases, the such cases, the atheist is more "dangerous" than the religious man. I mean let's be real. Would you prefer to walk down a dark alley at 2am among atheists who were raised in rough neighborhoods, or would you prefer to walk down a dark alley of Jewish rabbis who were also raised in rough neighborhoods?

The Iraq war might be a case in point. There were no "weapons of mass destruction" as claimed by the Christian Bush.

Don't be a frickin idiot. Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and Bush decided to go to Iraq before he even became President. Hussein had disobeyed UN demands for 12 years without consequence and he vowed to change that. It wasn't a "Christian" plot for every intelligence agency in the world to tell NSA that Hussein had WMDs.

An atheist might well have rejected the Iraq war on grounds that no evidence supported Christian Bush's claims.

There were plenty of non-Christians who supported the "war." And by the way, this nonsense about a "war" is misleading. The conventional war was over and done with within days. What has transpired since then is a massive cluster f*** whereby our military has been told to act as security guards in an entirely unstable area.

War is only one danger of religion.

War is related to politics moreso than it will ever be related to religion. To attribute the Middle-East crisis to a battle of religions instead of politics, proves just how much of an idiot you really are. I guess you also believe George Bush masterminded 9-11?

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

In your case it applies to many. The irony here is that I am the theist who has provided facts and substnatiated them. I have actually read books on the pertinent matters. You're supposed to be the "informed" atheist who doesn't know how to read anything except silly web articles written by experts in nothing.

The issue is that religion is unreliable in that it substitutes truth by assertion for a genuine search for fact

In some cases yes. But even in these cases, how is it "dangerous"? It makes people happy doesn't it? Happier people are more pleasant to be around and that has a trickling effect on society as a whole. I'd hate to be among a society of groggy atheists who have nothing better to do than bash those who believe differently.

In that regard, religion is a threat, hence a danger.

You're not explaining how it becomes a threat or a danger. Threat to what? How in the hell do idiots like charity present a "threat" to me? She is in ignorant bliss. The only reason she is online all the time is because she is disabled. I have no dount her Mormonism brings her happiness and some sense of purpose in this life. However idiotic she may appear from a logical standpoint, I'd rather leave my kids in her care than say, someone atheists like Polygamy Porter or yourself. Why? Because you're just downright unpleasant, and I think it says plenty about the kind of person you are. Personally I think you'd benefit from religious instruction of some type. Virtually all religions teach humans how to act more pleasantly with their fellow man. What kind of instruction do atheists rely on? Their supposed advanced evolutionary DNA, complete with moral code of conduct?
Please.

Religion is an assault on reason.

You have no demonstrated this. All you have done is howl at the moon about a belief system you don't share. That's bigotry.

Faith-based conclusions are unreliable

So what? Religion isn't only about faith-based conclusions. It is also based on teachings that benefit human society and even health.

“War” as you refer above is not the issue.

Oh so now you're back tracking. You're the one who raised war to begin with. First it was the crusades and then you desperately tried to make the Iraq war a "Christian" event.

Politics also was not the issue.

Your failure to understand religion and politics together is only one of your many problems.

[_Ren]

What evidence can you offer for your claim of “atheistic fundamentalists”?

I would point towards your own distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' atheism as an example.
I would call 'hard' atheism leaning towards a fundamentalist view.

Note that I didn't state that atheistic fundamentalism represented a 'large' proportion of atheists. I just said that (in my opinion) it exists.


And yes, I know that a youtube link isn't evidence. (Certainly not the one I posted)
It was an attempt at something called 'humour'. (And note the emphasis on the word attempt...!)

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.

Most religious people I've ever interacted with don't say 'prayer OR science'. They say 'Do both'.
How is doing all that modern science says - but then adding a 'prayer' somewhere in there - 'dangerous'?

NOTE: I'm not saying there aren't examples of dangerous religious ideas and practices. Your claim is that all religious faith is dangerous in some way. One point you raise is relying on faith or prayer. But I actually haven't met a religious person who only relied on faith or prayer.
Most of them believe that God was ultimately responsible for the invention of science. That God is responsible for the doctor, and what the doctor does. And therefore you aren't 'denying Gods power' if you make use of science. In fact, you are harnessing it.

...it may be untrue (I certainly believe it's untrue), but why is such a belief dangerous?

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Amish are dangerous because they drive horse-drawn buggies?!

[_GoodK]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Amish are dangerous because they drive horse-drawn buggies?![/quote]


The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).

[_karl61]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Amish are dangerous because they drive horse-drawn buggies?!

The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).[/quote]

hey - I hear the drive by shootings with horse-drawn buggies - are getting meaner and meaner.

[Guest]

The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists

Indeed! Heh! I would call that a bit of a stretch!!
It would be especially 'whack' if it were to be bought up just days after yet another fatal shooting incident on one of your college campuses.

...but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).

I have no doubt that I could be 'concerned' about some aspects of Amish life. (Although I'm not sure I'm convinced that 'dangerous' is the right word in a few of the cases being mentioned).
But what I asked was a very specific question. I was asking specifically whether the Amish tendency to ride around in horse-drawn buggies was a 'dangerous' aspect of their lifestyle.
I ask this specific question because this seemed to be JAK's conclusion to Monikers comments. (At least I can't see how else you could interpret the response, given the content of Monikers post). So I just wanted to clarify...

[_JAK]

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?

Moniker stated:
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!

That you identify other dangers does not mitigate the dangers of religion. While you may enjoy just what you state, you appear unlikely to give up all the benefits which you enjoy to embrace the level of Amish life, trade automatic climate control for a coal/wood stove, and relinquish all the benefits you derive from electricity. You don’t “love their culture” to the extent that you would relinquish your own for theirs and accept their religious doctrines.

JAK previously:
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.

Moniker stated:
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!

While a nice sentiment, it’s no refutation regarding the dangers posed by choosing religion over reason. You have not suggested that you would seriously consider abandonment of your cultural world for that of the Amish. It’s a study for you. It’s an interesting exploration and entertainment. That’s likely a good thing for you. It does not necessarily elevate the plights of the Amish world. However, there are splits and divisions even as we speak among that group as well as many others.

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

Moniker stated:
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?

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

JAK previously:
“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.”

JAK:
That which deprives a group or individual of information and education currently available places them at risk (responding to your question). Part of culture of this time is access to medical science and the care and treatment of illness or disease. Close intermarriage (as a result of increasingly limited choices) places people (the Amish) at risk for inherited disease and deficiency.

The reference was not to “America specifically.” For example: embryonic stem-cell research is taking place outside the US due to the faith-based restrictions on it by an American president. In order to gain more information, those who seek it locate where there is a favorable climate for pursuit of information and education.

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

Some Amish seek medical care with all the benefits medical science can offer while generally rejecting the principles on which it is founded as a result of religion. Not all Amish, however, seek medical attention through medical science. The degree to which you regard as “so cute in black with … black bonnets" is irrelevant to the thesis regarding rejection of reason and evidence, and how that places people at risk.

Those who fail to take full advantage of the reason and evidence essential to present-day medical care are at risk.

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

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

The degree of “danger” in your specific example is relative. Had you been unable to stop and hit the Amish buggy killing those inside, the potential danger would have been realized in quite a different way than your story ended.

JAK

[_Ren]

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

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

I drive to my parents house 'religiously' every week on Sunday.
I swear - almost every single week - there is either a horse drawn cart, or a really slow steam-engine, or a really slow old car, or something 'wacky' like that I meet along the way. Just seems to be a regular thing - there are quite a few 'old transportation' nuts around the area, and they like going out and about on Sundays.

...I don't believe there is any religious motivation behind doing this.

Are these people 'dangerous'?