is religion dangerous?

[GadFly]

If we believe the Old Testament as having historical value, then the early Israelites massacred millions in their original conquest of the holy land. Moses was a murderer, King David was an adulterer and sent a good man to his death so he could sleep with the mans wife. Solomon was a worshipper of foreign gods,....The heroes of the Bible were frequently violent, manipulative and ruthless. Many of the Psalms are pleas to God to destroy those who are the Psalmist's enemies.
....the brutality of religion is recorded in the Bible itself.
Perhaps its because religion (like nationalism) is based on primal instincts such as group-identification/selfhood/belongingness, it creates an atmosphere where mob mentality can take over and atrocities can be committed by otherwise peaceful people? Or perhaps people can be easily moved to commit terrible things and will shroud their motives in religious/nationalistic terms to justify their actions.

The Bible is a story about God and about man too. The Bible is about truth and does not try to hide anything, especially the evil that man does.

 

[GadFly]

This simply is not true, many dictatorial leaders have had the blessings of the religious leaders. All leaders of nations are secular by definition, this does not mean their power base is not fueled by religious traditions.

Both of you are correct. You prove that many traditional religions just don't get it whether they are secular or very holy. The mind of God might be be something different than either possesses.

 

[GadFly]

Yes, but your supporting evidence a lot of times is affected by the presupposition of religion. A Christian I was talking to recently told me that he believes in Chritianity because he was taught that way and he found out for himself. What he found out for himself, though, was that he had had a very good life, and so attributed that necessarily to God. That same good life could just as easily be attributed to another god, or, as in my case, to no god at all. He only attributed a normal existence to God because that's what he had been taught.

Are you saying that you base your beliefs on his testimony? I don't see where his life experience contributes to the argument about God,although I am happy he had a good life.

 

[GadFly]

Well, so you say, but I'm skeptical, to put it mildly. Obviously, all religions cannot be true, as they contradict each other. What evidence would a believer use to determine which is true? How do they avoid the risk of just continuing to accept what was drilled into them as a child, and allowing that to unduly affect their thinking?

I guess I would say that I wouldn't accept anything solely internal and subjective as evidence. Evidence, by its nature, is duplicable and observable by anyone, regardless of their belief system.

Maybe I should have been hyptechnical and said, "Negligible evidence," rather than no evidence. I don't think any theist would claim that they adhere to their religious belief because of the evidence, and many admit that it is in spite of evidence to the contrary. You know, that whole faith thing.

I am just curious, but I am very religious and and would not believe anything without evidence. Do you that anything that is internal is by itself subjective?

 

[GadFly]

The only logical conclusion is that religions are not dangerous. Only humans are.

Does one have a choice to be something besides human? With all do respect your statement was meaningless or at least past my understanding. Would you please restate it.

 

[Magic Man]

Are you saying that you base your beliefs on his testimony? I don't see where his life experience contributes to the argument about God,although I am happy he had a good life.

Nope, I'm saying that the only reason he sees God in his good life is because he's programmed to. He was taught about God first, and then started to see him in his everyday life. A Muslim is taught about Allah first, and then sees Allah in his everyday life. I did the same thing for many years, but now I've broken away from that, and no longer think that my good life is a reflection of God's existence.

 

[Escéptico]

Some religions can be dangerous. Just like some people are dangerous.

Be careful of over-generalizations. Most religion benefits society.

Quite a generalization, coming from someone warning against them. Would you care to give us an example of even ONE benefit that religion bestows upon society that couldn't also be motivated by non-theistic reasons?

 

[gnomon]

Frubals. :bow:

Is that Zhou Yu in your avatar?

 

[gnomon]

Does one have a choice to be something besides human? With all do respect your statement was meaningless or at least past my understanding. Would you please restate it.

Religion is a creation of the human mind. Every religious, or better yet, every philosophical view or opinion is filtered through an individual human mind. That is where the danger lies.

A similar argument you could hear in a twelve step program is the horrors or danger of alcohol. Unlike religion, alcohol is a physical entity which reacts directly on the human body for the most part outside of one's conscious control. Still, alcohol is not dangerous. Dangers with alcohol are solely the result of the use by a human. Or perhaps a dog, monkey, etc.

In short, I don't see the use in personifying religion or philosophy for that matter. It simplifies the dynamics of human thought and interaction leading us to false conclusions. I'm guilty of doing such things. Usually not religion but I know I've stated that patriotism or such concepts are dangerous. It is imperative that I recognize the incorrect nature of such personifications.

And yes, other things can be dangerous as well. It's a fair description to perhaps state that dynamite, solar radiation and such are dangerous but only in context. Of course, other living species on this planet can be dangerous as well.

There is also the issue of generalization based upon bias. Take one religion...Christianity...recognize that the religion has had an incredible number of followers over the years and to make a statement that religion is dangerous, beneficial or any characterization as an overall truth and it will not be supported by the observations of its many adherents. The differentiation between adherents, adherents of other religions and those who adhere to no religion is not that great and when taken among a large population practically non-existent. At this point many people like to interject with religious conflicts while ignoring secular, ethnic and other conflicts which I have found dominate our history.

Okay, that was a heck of a lot longer than necessary.

 

[Starfish]

Quite a generalization, coming from someone warning against them. Would you care to give us an example of even ONE benefit that religion bestows upon society that couldn't also be motivated by non-theistic reasons?

I don't see how I over-generalized because I said SOME and MOST, not all.
As for an example, I can use my own life. I would not be donating to the poor AS MUCH as I do now, if not for my religion. I would possibly be addicted to some stimulants and possibly even alcohol--which I've never touched, because of my religion. I might have been guilty of some DUI's. I might have become a teenage, unwed, mother had it not been for my religion which taught me to delay sex till marriage. I might have fudged in my honesty here and there had it not been for my awareness that God knows my every thought.
I wouldn't have sent and paid for my sons to serve missions in poor countries, where they saw people accept the gospel and as a result, improve their behaviors and lifestyles. I might have been enticed into gambling, another thing my religion discourages, and added to the toll that it takes on society.

Of course many atheists live honorable, examplary lives. I'm talking about myself, and possibly many like me.

 

[Escéptico]

Of course many atheists live honorable, examplary lives. I'm talking about myself, and possibly many like me.

But that's not what I asked. You're making this entire issue revolve around yourself, and I'm looking for something more general.

I want to know ONE thing that religion motivates people to do that simple common sense, human concern, or a passion for social justice couldn't motivate them to do.

 

[Storm]

But that's not what I asked. You're making this entire issue revolve around yourself, and I'm looking for something more general.

I want to know ONE thing that religion motivates people to do that simple common sense, human concern, or a passion for social justice couldn't motivate them to do.

So long as religion is a valid motivation to live morally, does it really matter if there are other, equally valid motivations?

 

[Magic Man]

So long as religion is a valid motivation to live morally, does it really matter if there are other, equally valid motivations?

Actually, in this case I think it does matter. For these purposes, the establishment of an equality between non-religious motivations to do good and religious motivations is key. In the end, no matter what your motivation is, the main point is to do it, but here, the idea is just to prove that you don't have to be religious to do good.

 

[Storm]

Actually, in this case I think it does matter. For these purposes, the establishment of an equality between non-religious motivations to do good religious motivations is key. In the end, no matter what your motivation is, the main point is to do it, but here, the idea is just to prove that you don't have to be religious to do good.

Fair enough, and I agree. I was looking at the post from the perspective of the original topic, whether religion is dangerous. Perhaps that was my mistake.

 

[Starfish]

But that's not what I asked. You're making this entire issue revolve around yourself, and I'm looking for something more general.

I want to know ONE thing that religion motivates people to do that simple common sense, human concern, or a passion for social justice couldn't motivate them to do.

I'm trying to understand you, really. I use myself and my experience, because I cannot speak for others. But there have to be thousands like me.

I see tremendous good in every religion that I know anything about. In my particular religion, as you know, alcohol is not allowed. Therefore, there are millions of us not drinking that otherwise, might be. That many less potential drunks on the roads. Here is one way that a religion has increased public safety.

I grew up inseparable from my best friend. We practically lived at each other's houses, throughout most of our childhoods. So I look at her life as a sort of measuring tool, to compare with mine. Her family was agnostic, or maybe vaguely Christian--non church attending. Mine was LDS. Had I not been religious, I would likely have been exactly like her. When we were teenagers we each had our boyfriends; mine I later married. She had a pregnancy scare. She ended up not pregnant, however, HAD she been, she would have either given up the baby, or gotten married (which would have led to a divorce as they soon after broke up), or she'd kept the baby and another statistic is added to single-parenting.
OTOH, I never had a pregnancy scare, because I never had sex till I was married. Why? Because of my religion--and for me, THAT was the ONLY reason I didn't. I simply would not have been strong, or smart enough without it. Now multiply my case by thousands--and you have another benefit to society.

I'm sorry this may not be the answer you want. It's the best I have. But it's a scenario I've seen many, many times.

 

[Escéptico]

I'm trying to understand you, really.

Understand this.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that religion doesn't motivate people to do any good things in their own lives or society that plain old humanistic values and common sense wouldn't motivate people to do.

However, it's clear that the I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam, which still causes millions of people to suffer and make others suffer, is a uniquely religious phenomenon.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm trying to understand you, really. I use myself and my experience, because I cannot speak for others. But there have to be thousands like me.

I see tremendous good in every religion that I know anything about. In my particular religion, as you know, alcohol is not allowed. Therefore, there are millions of us not drinking that otherwise, might be. That many less potential drunks on the roads. Here is one way that a religion has increased public safety.

I grew up inseparable from my best friend. We practically lived at each other's houses, throughout most of our childhoods. So I look at her life as a sort of measuring tool, to compare with mine. Her family was agnostic, or maybe vaguely Christian--non church attending. Mine was LDS. Had I not been religious, I would likely have been exactly like her. When we were teenagers we each had our boyfriends; mine I later married. She had a pregnancy scare. She ended up not pregnant, however, HAD she been, she would have either given up the baby, or gotten married (which would have led to a divorce as they soon after broke up), or she'd kept the baby and another statistic is added to single-parenting.
OTOH, I never had a pregnancy scare, because I never had sex till I was married. Why? Because of my religion--and for me, THAT was the ONLY reason I didn't. I simply would not have been strong, or smart enough without it. Now multiply my case by thousands--and you have another benefit to society.

I'm sorry this may not be the answer you want. It's the best I have. But it's a scenario I've seen many, many times.

So, your religion bans drinking alcohol, which rids us of that many more drunks. It also doesn't allow you to fully experience life. I'm not promoting getting drunk all the time, but drinking in moderation can enhance some experiences. Nothing in this world is completely positive. Everything can have negative effects, so banning anything that can have negative consequences is useless. At that point, you're no longer living. Sure, if nobody drank, we'd have no alcoholics. If no one ever had sex, no one would ever have children out of wedlock or transmit any STDs. I could go on and on with other examples, but the point is that things, like alcohol, shouldn't be banned because they might have negative consequences.

 

[Starfish]

So, your religion bans drinking alcohol, which rids us of that many more drunks. It also doesn't allow you to fully experience life. I'm not promoting getting drunk all the time, but drinking in moderation can enhance some experiences. Nothing in this world is completely positive. Everything can have negative effects, so banning anything that can have negative consequences is useless. At that point, you're no longer living. Sure, if nobody drank, we'd have no alcoholics. If no one ever had sex, no one would ever have children out of wedlock or transmit any STDs. I could go on and on with other examples, but the point is that things, like alcohol, shouldn't be banned because they might have negative consequences.

Oh my goodness. I'm not fully experiencing life because I've never consumed alcohol? How can outside chemicals taken into your body, help you fully experience life? Some people don't know how to have fun without it. I do. I can experience life, untainted, unfiltered, in reality. I don't have to take drugs either, which many would claim enhances life. My perception of my experiences is through my brain and spirit alone, without the dependancy and buffering of chemicals. That's far better, IMO.
Any because of my ban on alcohol, no one else will EVER have to pay the price for the negative consequences, that I "might have".

 

[Michel07]

Understand this.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that religion doesn't motivate people to do any good things in their own lives or society that plain old humanistic values and common sense wouldn't motivate people to do.

However, it's clear that the I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam, which still causes millions of people to suffer and make others suffer, is a uniquely religious phenomenon.

To be honest I don' get your point either because everyone has good in them also. Everyone cannot help but to do good sometimes . So what if an atheist is capable of doing good. If he wasn't he would be the only one who couldn't

 

[Magic Man]

Any because of my ban on alcohol, no one else will EVER have to pay the price for the negative consequences, that I "might have".

But you will never gain the positive the experience could give you, and they won't either.