Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ECrownofFire]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.

That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.

Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.

Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.

Saying that X religion causes the bogeyman thing is like saying that racism causes you to not like Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc. It is unique simply because it exists. Same goes for an eternal reward, and the fanaticism.

As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.

[Sowelu]

Well, the natural followup to Glowcat's argument is that people who teach their kids crazy conspiracy theories are exactly as harmful to their children as people who teach their kids religion.

[ECrownofFire]

Well, the natural followup to Glowcat's argument is that people who teach their kids crazy conspiracy theories are exactly as harmful to their children as people who teach their kids religion.

And I don't have many qualms with that, because I'm against indoctrinated religion. Except that you could argue that conspiracy theories are more harmful than religion.

[Urist is dead tome]

Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.

Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Dammit, I have to link this AGAIN.

People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Thank you crownoffire for giving me a good page to explain my beliefs on abortion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

[Glowcat]

You said that you had never seen damage caused by religion which non-religion couldn't do as well. I showed an instance where you were wrong. To believe in the supernatural is decidedly religious and the root of a major disagreement I have with religion, the other issue being traditionalism and dogma. Really, when I speak about religion I am referring to both of those aspects.

As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.

It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.

It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.

And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.

[Urist is dead tome]

You said that you had never seen damage caused by religion which non-religion couldn't do as well. I showed an instance where you were wrong. To believe in the supernatural is decidedly religious and the root of a major disagreement I have with religion, the other issue being traditionalism and dogma. Really, when I speak about religion I am referring to both of those aspects.

As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.

It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.

It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.

And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.

Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.

[Glowcat]

Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole.

I never even mentioned a particular religious belief group...

[Urist is dead tome]

Than you are applying stereotypes to religion as a whole.

Which is worse.

[CoughDrop]

Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.

Your Bible also condones many other morally controversial acts. As do the Koran and the Tanakh. You could say that I'm being offensive when I would really be just making observations about your own teachings.

[Glowcat]

Than you are applying stereotypes to religion as a whole.

I was talking about specific ideas that arise out of religions or are dogma in them...

[Urist is dead tome]

Than you are applying stereotypes to religion as a whole.

I was talking about specific ideas that arise out of religions or are dogma in them...

Hmmmm.... Okay. I guess I flew off the handle there.

[ECrownofFire]

You said that you had never seen damage caused by religion which non-religion couldn't do as well. I showed an instance where you were wrong. To believe in the supernatural is decidedly religious and the root of a major disagreement I have with religion, the other issue being traditionalism and dogma. Really, when I speak about religion I am referring to both of those aspects.

There are things that are ultimately specific to religion, but like I said, there are other things are specific to other beliefs (for example, racism).

As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.

It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.

It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.

Okay, I think I know what you're getting at now. The only reason that faith is largest in religion is because it's practically the only thing that contains it. But the people that are against homosexuality and such only believe in that stuff because of indoctrinated religion (which I'm against), not religion itself. Without indoctrinated religion, most probably wouldn't hate those things. Even without religion at all, the rest of them would probably still find a reason to hate those things.

And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.

I can give you that conspiracy theorists are crazy, but they are only an example. Faith is really something specific to religion, if we're defining it that way. Conspiracy theorists find "proof", religious people find faith. There's the occasional person that claims to have proof of whatever religion, but it's ultimately unprovable to anyone other than that one person.

By the way, as a message to everyone, nobody likes it when you generalize religion. Especially when you consider Christianity to be the head of it all.

[malimbar04]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.

That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.

Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.

This all makes sense to me, but I'm not sure the data supports it. I refer to: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/scott-atran , specifically at time marker 7:15 or something. "Religious education is inversely proportional, it's a negative predictor, of being involved with violence and Jihad. It is a negative predictor of being radicalized in prison." There is a little more as well of course.

How would you explain this data?

Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.

I seperated out this part just because i like the part I bolded. I wouldn't say it's the greatest of sins, but it's definately very... insidious.

[Sowelu]

Ah, but that's formal education.  Learning it from your family, growing up in the church, is NOT "religious education", that's "religious indoctrination".

[Glowcat]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.

That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.

Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.

This all makes sense to me, but I'm not sure the data supports it. I refer to: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/scott-atran , specifically at time marker 7:15 or something. "Religious education is inversely proportional, it's a negative predictor, of being involved with violence and Jihad. It is a negative predictor of being radicalized in prison." There is a little more as well of course.

How would you explain this data?

I'm not sure what you're objecting to or why religious Madrasahs in Pakistan and their correlation with radical militancy are relevant. What I put forth was a brief list of religious inspired ideas that have managed to cause great harm and had no equal secular outlet (although nationalism is comparable to the 2nd). Where these religious ideas are learned doesn't matter so much as the fervency with which they are followed and believed.

I did look a bit into what Scott Atran was saying however, and I believe this was the paper he referenced: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=130&Itemid=54

Note that while religious Madrasah students aren't given to violent militarism themselves their polling numbers show them in support of destructive goals with 53 percent of students who said that Pakistan should support Jihad groups to reclaim Kashmir compared to 33 percent of public school students and 23 percent of private school students. The danger posed by these institutions is not the creation of a populist Jihad but rather the entrenchment of a religious-right much like the one present in the United States. People so influenced by religion become a political force and imo have the ability to cause more harm in the long run than a bunch of angry insurgents.

Being unnaturally stubborn about something isn't terribly destructive on its own -- well, unless one values intellectual honesty and progress -- but when combined with a dangerous idea it becomes an explosive cocktail. The problem with combating Faith views on their own terms is that none of them are able to prove themselves more valid than the others due to an inherent failure of Faith-based epistemology. The appeal to faith used to defend many benign religious arguments, the ones where selective total agnosticism seems to justify anything the believer wants, can be used equally well by people who follow not-so benign understandings.

If this faith block is removed, the dangerous dogma people feel compelled to follow will no longer have a supernaturally backed auto-win card to play. The goal is to get people to think like secular Humanists by not looking to the past for their policies/morals, but rather look to the future with an objective adapting outlook. Religion must essentially be replaced by Philosophy. We must understand what we believe, why we believe it, and why it should or shouldn't influence the direction of our societies.