Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_dartagnan]

No way. The best explanation is that it serves for one's survival!

I mean that worked so well for the hundreds of Christian martyrs during the first and second centuries.

[_EAllusion]

No way. The best explanation is that it serves for one's survival!

I mean that worked so well for the hundreds of Christian martyrs during the first and second centuries.

A suite of behaviors/traits can be generally advantageous to the survival of members of a group while at the same time not working out for some members of that group. It's just a statistical tendency averaged over a population. There's nothing difficult to grasp there. I don't buy the "all seemingly altrustic acts are selfish ones" idea where altruistic motivations are gambits to get good treatment in return, but the implied criticism here is way off.

Altruism faeries, Kevin. Altruism faeries. They account for altruism so well I don't see how we don't' adopt this as our explanation. It's air-tight.

[_dartagnan]

Oh I grasp the argument well enough. I'm just saying its not science. So stop calling it science, is all I ask.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I want to know how postulating God could explain anything. If we really don't know how we get our morals (and I sincerely doubt that this is true), and we trot out God as an ad hoc explanation for them, we can't attribute any characteristics to this patch (I'm sorry: Patch -- gotta show the proper reverence) we just created. To my eyes, saying "God did it" is equivalent to "Just... because! That's why!". Care to talk me down, dartagnan?

[_antishock8]

Dartagnan is defintiely a god-of-the-gaps sort of guy. He's kind of interesting to watch, in the sense that he's so bright, but clings to a metaphysical ontology.

I'm not sure how one goes from logical thinker about, say, one's career, but then suspends reason enough so that one makes room for Deism. For example, as a computer programmer, if were you to tell your boss that his web browser crashed because God did it you would no longer be employed. No one could reasonably be expected to believe that explanation. No. You would be expected to investigate the manner in a rigorous way until you resolved the issue. However, when it comes to issues, on a grand scale, saying that "God did it" seems to pacify so many.

I don't get it. I just don't. I don't see that as a reasonable explanation for anything. And I don't get why Dartagnan resorts to that comforting message. It's very mysterious to me.

[_dartagnan]

Are you two finished with the straw men?

[_antishock8]

Are you two finished with the straw men?

Ah, I'm disappointed in you. Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it a logical fallacy. If you actually have a position on my observation feel free to post it, but I'm not stating my point of view to undermine your point that religion, in of itself, isn't dangerous. And to nip this one in the bud, this isn't a red herring, either.

[_dartagnan]

Oh stop pretending you're not misrepresenting me and stop regurgitating Dawkins lingo. Can you defend the "science" of his argument or can't you?

Didn't think so.

I have never argued "God did it" as you assert, therefore you're just beating a straw man. Not because I say so, but because you're doing it.

[_Ray A]

However, when it comes to issues, on a grand scale, saying that "God did it" seems to pacify so many.

If you look at Kevin's posts you'll see he argues the very opposite, along the lines of Anthony Flew.

And deism doesn't postulate an interfering God.

[_dartagnan]

Thanks Ray,

Nothing ticks me off on these forums, more than atheists refusing to deal with the arguments yet insist on playing armchair analyst as they look down their noses expressing their "disappointment" with me, as if it is just unfathomable that someone could actually accept belief in a supreme deity.

Dawkins apparently has done a great job in deluding so many people into thinking no real scinetists believs in God, and therefore no intelligent people do either.

Not a single one of them have their mind opened enough to read what the Dawkins critics have had to say.

Their preist dressed in a labcoat has spoken, and that's all they need to hear.