Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[rational experiences]

If men say God is dark energy. Clearly they see no planet at all.

Man of science 100 per cent advised lying.

 

[firedragon]

You didn't understand the complete and true meaning of your question.

I didnt understand my question? Please clarify my question.

 

[firedragon]

Opinions change with discussion and knowledge.

The cancel culture cuts off Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, free press, and free assembly. All required for free religion and required for the American way of life and the American dream.

We can't even discuss some medical condition in the world (I won't say what it is) without being gagged to silence. They say it for the public good.

Thank goodness we are in America.

See, maybe you can open some thread in a relevant area to discuss your political motivations.

 

[firedragon]

Which makes sense, to some degree. The majority of atheists I meet on a daily basis in Australia are pretty vague in their atheism, and might not even self-describe as such.

It's cultural, I guess, but you're likely to get a pretty non-committal answer if you asked a random person here about their religion. There are plenty of non-religious folk, but working out if they're still theistic, deistic, agnostic, atheistic...I mean, good luck.

So I'd say the majority don't belong to a school of thought at all.

But, of course, there are also those with a more structured set of beliefs built on top of their basic atheism, who have some common ground or understanding with other atheists, etc.

These could be fairly thought of as 'schools' of thought, I think.

The majority of atheists call themselves atheists because they dont believe in God. Simple. But of course each individual will have varying worldviews, epistemic propositions, etc.

When I said "schools" I was directly referring to philosophical definitions by atheistic philosophers. Like New Atheists, Silent atheism, secular humanism, etc etc.

 

[Nakosis]

Sort of like "Hitler tortured to death Jews" is just an opinion?

Are you blaming the Jews or their religion for Hitler's actions?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The majority of atheists call themselves atheists because they dont believe in God. Simple. But of course each individual will have varying worldviews, epistemic propositions, etc.

When I said "schools" I was directly referring to philosophical definitions by atheistic philosophers. Like New Atheists, Silent atheism, secular humanism, etc etc.

Yep, that's pretty much what I meant too. That makes sense to me.
Certainly I had New Atheists, and secular humanism in mind when posting.

Sidenote, but Australians are pretty funny when it comes to religion, compared to most places, I would say. There is a higher degree of apathy, and many people who are atheists wouldn't call themselves atheists. An atheist would often be seen as someone who thinks a lot about religion (in colloquial terms). A lot of people here who don't believe in God, per se, would still hesitate to describe themselves as atheists. Or agnostics, even. I'm massively generalising, of course, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[firedragon]

Sidenote, but Australians are pretty funny when it comes to religion, compared to most places, I would say. There is a higher degree of apathy,

You know what? In some cultures they say "you will get a million tomorrow" when someone says something you meant to say but refrained from doing so.

This is exactly my sentiment. Australians do have a higher degree of apathy. But that does not mean they dont have empathy. Just that in my honest experience, Australians just dont care what your religion is. And I must say, predominantly atheists.

The thing is I have never lived in Australia long so I cant make huge claims, this is purely anecdotal. But those guys just want to have a chat with you, maybe party a bit, do what ever people do at leisure, and part with good will. Thats it. I like them.

 

[Nakosis]

No problem. Clarifications are always great.

But you are wrong. There are lots and lots of studies and books written on religion. And there are lots of data that you infer information from. Opinion polls prove opinions. Not even correspondence.

Ok, well I know Dawkins. He is one of the four horsemen right?
The implication of his position is not correct.
The other three I don't know much about their writings really. I was hoping for something more specific I could look into but that's ok. Maybe I'll just see how other folks respond and catch on.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human asked one man group why did you attack another human group. It owns a group answer.

Religious belief is personal.

You can live and be forced by community standards yet also not believe personally in the religion.

In Australia we own freedom of rights.

If that is what you are niggling about.

As we are all by 100 percent science status taught we are a natural life living on our owned planet. Any other type of science expression is a liar.

Outright b.s. artist.

As civilization owns invention for monetary benefits and civilization is not natural life status first.

Holy life is natural life is first.

Civilization 100 per cent artificial fakery.

So humans do a summation. Everytime civilization reaches a peak in technology it destroys itself.

Is human behaviour.

Choices.

You haven't learnt any lesson as a human living life on earth. You own by agreement consensus behaviours supporting life's destruction.

As consensus says most humans nowadays live a life in created greed conditions.

Greed as a status one of our human warnings lifestyle.

Pretty basic it is about time you tell a human truth first.

Being poor is not opposite to being rich. Natural existed first and there was no poor man.

 

[rational experiences]

Ok, well I know Dawkins. He is one of the four horsemen right?
The implication of his position is not correct.
The other three I don't know much about their writings really. I was hoping for something more specific I could look into but that's ok. Maybe I'll just see how other folks respond and catch on.

In the beginning the unnamed earth and it's unnamed heavens existed.

So you are wrong.

Ask why organisation members give themselves a bible name? Egotism the answer.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, well I know Dawkins. He is one of the four horsemen right?
The implication of his position is not correct.
The other three I don't know much about their writings really. I was hoping for something more specific I could look into but that's ok. Maybe I'll just see how other folks respond and catch on.

Think of this. Hitchens said that "organised religion is the main source of hatred in the world", and said that "Islam, Christianity , Judaism, are the axis of evil".

 

[Nakosis]

In the beginning the unnamed earth and it's unnamed heavens existed.

So you are wrong.

Ask why organisation members give themselves a bible name? Egotism the answer.

They did not give themselves a biblical name. It was given to them. However they didn't protest this name. I suspect it helped them sell books.

 

[Nakosis]

Think of this. Hitchens said that "organised religion is the main source of hatred in the world", and said that "Islam, Christianity , Judaism, are the axis of evil".

Which is an opinion. I honestly don't think one can separate our history, ourselves from religion to examine in any unbiased way the role of religion in our violent past.
I didn't see anyone offer any facts to support this claim.

As far as Dawkins goes you might find this conversation between Dawkins and a Muslim informative regarding his views.

Lengthy but I expect you'd see he is not one who'd make such a claim as in the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Which is an opinion. I honestly don't think one can separate our history, ourselves from religion to examine in any unbiased way the role of religion in our violent past.
I didn't see anyone offer any facts to support this claim.

As far as Dawkins goes you might find this conversation between Dawkins and a Muslim informative regarding his views.

Lengthy but I expect you'd see he is not one who'd make such a claim as in the OP.

Hmm. Many have seen this video.

Please elaborate what your point is. I can see that without addressing the point go the OP, you are trying to cut it from the bud. But you should note that it is not the bud. But no problem.

What is your point that you gathered from the Al Jazeera Interview and how does that affect the OP.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You know what? In some cultures they say "you will get a million tomorrow" when someone says something you meant to say but refrained from doing so.

This is exactly my sentiment. Australians do have a higher degree of apathy. But that does not mean they dont have empathy. Just that in my honest experience, Australians just dont care what your religion is. And I must say, predominantly atheists.

The thing is I have never lived in Australia long so I cant make huge claims, this is purely anecdotal. But those guys just want to have a chat with you, maybe party a bit, do what ever people do at leisure, and part with good will. Thats it. I like them.

Me too...but I'm a little biased!!

 

[firedragon]

Me too...but I'm a little biased!!

We are all biased in some way or another brother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread is to discuss a particular claim as of course said in the title. I have heard similar sentiments said the the so called "four horsemen". This is of course not the real sentiment of atheistic scholars in general or atheistic social scientists in general, but I guess some of the evangelical atheists though they dont like to referred to as such.

Is there any truth in this? What is the data that can be provided to affirm this by those who do claim it? What is the study methodology?

In the world of preaching and rhetoric, theists used to have this idea that any theist, muslim or Christian who does something wrong, like abominable sins that are against religious teachings like murder, rape, etc are not-religious. They are considered atheists. Of course this is not based on some kind of quantitative poll, but general rhetoric in circles. But the thing is this. When a theist refers to someone in that manner because he is a sinner, they dont associate the sinner with atheists who call themselves atheists as a group of people with a world view, they just call him "God-less". It is an accusation of pretending to be a Muslim or Christian but is Godless. The idea is that if you are a believer, you will not do that sin. Well hell, if one believes he will really go to hell for something he will not do it. Thus, in their logic, he simply cannot be a believer. So, in traditional circles there is this religious idea that atheism is by default harmful, but more often it is the sinner who is actually associated with atheism, not atheism with sinning, if you can understand that.

Why do these atheists who make the claim in the Title actually make that claim? Is it also a religious belief just like the theists described above? But in fact, it is in my opinion worse than the claim of the theists because theists dont associate atheism as a whole harmful in general, but these atheists claim theology as a whole is harmful. Done, and dusted.

So, whats the study?

I think its a very interesting topic.

I'ld say that any ideology which considers believing things on "faith", which is to say "on bad or no evidence", a virtue, is a harmful ideology.

Because essentially, it promotes gullibility and discourages rational thinking and reason. And that can't be good.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.

What does "belief" have to do with authority?
Who are these atheists you are referring to?

They want to make their own version of morality.

It's not a question about "wanting" that. It's a question about having no other choice but to do it.
Theists make their own morality as well, even if they don't realize it or hide behind some book.
Case in point, I know extremely friendly and moral muslims and I know extremely hostile immoral muslims. Both read the same book. Both will point to said book to "explain" their moral preferences.
Yet, the differences in their worldview / moral framework are as different as night and day.

They want to act immorally if they so desire.

This is pure bigotry

I used to live in Eire. As most of you know, it is a Catholic country.
..or was. When I was there [ in 1986 ], laws were based on "what the Pope said", such as abortions were illegal, and contraceptives could not be publicly sold.

And you consider that to be "moral"? Do you know that such shenannigans is what made AIDS and unwanted pregnancies the order of the day in regions like Africa, resulting in much suffering and misery?

I went back a few years ago, and it seems that membership of the EU is more important now than the Pope.

Thank goodness.

Theology is not harmful. It is disbelief in G-d that is harmful, imo.
It is hypocrisy that is harmful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I certainly need faith, but not for the reasons you suggest.
I need faith because I am aware what NOT having faith means.
It means that I will lose something that is valuable. Something that is good for me. It will be replaced with something inferior, which could lead to my downfall.

That's viciously circular.
That it would lead to your downfall, is something you believe on faith.
So if you would led go of faith, you would no longer believe faith based claims - including that one.

 

[rational experiences]

The O says men. Theo.

Thinking.

Where does it exist when not thin king?

King he says. I thought of great power and jewels. I named all things as a scientist.

El I said was gods power.
Jew I said a story.

Greed he said a choice.

The choice agreed by men the brothers group.

Scientists.

I am a female. I did my own non science research.

Gained a non science answer.

Words says men is the O ology.

Ologies my intelligence.

One word owns one meaning. Uses secondary words to describe yet can only own one status as it's word.

Said agreed by men first.

Space he says is nothing a hole empty.

Reason. I live on earth. I walk on earth. I live inside the heavens as a human first.

I look at holes. State God is whole being.

Whole versus hole.

23 a number.
24 he said O time.

One missing he said. A body of.

Said it in witness of just a man as a human thinking.

Yet a being says I am human. I own my sex a penis. Already twice he has said being... Hu MAN. Penis MAN.

Conscious

The place where you make mistakes.

As a being I can pretend I am equal as consciousness. Abstract reason. Looking at men.

Hence holy men a hole advice plus y as man said I am not any God body.

I don't own nuclear Satan volcanic inner body reactions.

Thesis a man of science mind missing said it. Isms. Satanic.

As he theoried about holes.

Pretty basic what is wrong in men of science inability to be rational first.

Hence when you are forced to live with men in every nation acting irrational.

First of all a female is not in any thinking terms an equal.

So you ask him how do you own life? By a man's god or by a human female mother!

Pretty basic advice why men using creative creation thesis are wrong.