Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[muhammad_isa]

So if you would led go of faith, you would no longer believe faith based claims - including that one.

It has nothing to do with claims, and EVERYTHING to do with experience.
Remembrance of G-d is life changing.
Human beings are inclined towards evil, and we need G-d.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It has nothing to do with claims, and EVERYTHING to do with experience.

No. It has to do with beliefs you came to through faith.
I even suspect that that which you consider to be a "downfall", which you haven't detailed what you mean by that, is in itself a faith based belief.

Remembrance of G-d is life changing.

Let go of faith is also. Many things are life changing. Many beliefs are (regardless of them being accurate or false).
That just shows that beliefs have impact, regardless of their accuracy.

Which, incidently, is precisely why I said that considering "faith" (= belief on bad or no evidence) to be a "virtue" is harmfull. Because beliefs have impact. So one better makes sure that beliefs are rationally justified.

Irrational beliefs lead to irrational impact.

Human beings are inclined towards evil, and we need G-d.

Another faith based belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which, incidently, is precisely why I said that considering "faith" (= belief on bad or no evidence) to be a "virtue" is harmfull. Because beliefs have impact. So one better makes sure that beliefs are rationally justified..

Exactly. Beliefs have impact. It changes our behaviour / lives.

Irrational beliefs lead to irrational impact..

There is nothing irrational about avoiding that which G-d has made unlawful. There is nothing irrational about establishing worship, which brings order into our lives, and G-d's help.

Another faith based belief.

Evil is defined in a general sense, by what it is not—the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness.

I observe that people are capable of evil, and have experienced temptation myself.
Why deny the truth?

 

[Mock Turtle]

No surprise perhaps to find me voting No as to their nature and by default being harmful (all depends upon the doctrines and such), but where the opportunity is obviously there, even with the evidence that many don't need any other reasons to do harm. Some examples as to why we might cause harm:

we might have harmful beliefs (even if we don't regard/recognise them as such) and these perhaps being religious ones;
we might react to criticisms or ridicule/slating of the above, e.g., perhaps citing blasphemy;
we might feel a strong allegiance to some group and hence go along with whatever the group decides or promotes;
we might be easily persuaded (perhaps by others or what we regard as evidence);
we might lack understanding and/or knowledge (regarding others, in particular areas, or in general);
we might feel a need to inflict harm/pain on others or to control them;
we might be jealous of what others have or feel they are not entitled to such;
we might fear or feel threatened by others or what they might do;
we might feel our wants or needs trump those of others, and hence disregard theirs;
we might not realise that we are harming others;
we might harm some (children, for example) because we think it necessary and for their benefit;
we might lack morality or perhaps have our own and disregard that of others or any societal norms;
we might view others as less 'worthy' than us;
we might be damaged in some way (born as, or possibly being from our parents, peers, or societal treatment/attitudes);

we might lack empathy for others (in general or at the time for various reasons);
we might harm others (those we love) to hurt ourselves (a form of self-sabotage or self-punishment);
we might simply enjoy harming others, and get habituated to such through feedback;
we might harm others in order to protect those we love, or do so in anticipation of such;
we might harm some - as in examples of mercy killing - to end a painful existence;
we may have been harmed ourselves and feel the need for revenge or to retaliate;
we might 'Other' some - simply disowning them as not being human (paedophiles, for example);
we often harm others by accident of course, and sometimes when we don't take enough care;
we might be affected by drugs or alcohol so as to be less in control;
we might just lose our temper or control of ourselves for a variety of reasons;
Our threshold for harming others might be lowered by circumstances, e.g., due to addictions or obsessions;
we might harm others in order to harm those we cannot harm, so these essentially being proxies;
we might harm others whilst defending ourselves, and this often being appropriate;

or any combination of these and to more or lesser extent.

You've noticed a gap in the list? Although debatable, many of the things that might cause harm to others could be associated with religious beliefs (the top section), even if many of these might also apply for other ideologies, but I think this perhaps does show that a religious belief could cause many harms as well as any good they do.

And this latter is my position, but not that easily demonstrated.

 

[firedragon]

No surprise perhaps to find me voting No as to their nature and by default being harmful (all depends upon the doctrines and such), but where the opportunity is obviously there, even with the evidence that many don't need any other reasons to do harm. Some examples as to why we might cause harm:

we might have harmful beliefs (even if we don't regard/recognise them as such) and these perhaps being religious ones;
we might react to criticisms or ridicule/slating of the above, e.g., perhaps citing blasphemy;
we might feel a strong allegiance to some group and hence go along with whatever the group decides or promotes;
we might be easily persuaded (perhaps by others or what we regard as evidence);
we might lack understanding and/or knowledge (regarding others, in particular areas, or in general);
we might feel a need to inflict harm/pain on others or to control them;
we might be jealous of what others have or feel they are not entitled to such;
we might fear or feel threatened by others or what they might do;
we might feel our wants or needs trump those of others, and hence disregard theirs;
we might not realise that we are harming others;
we might harm some (children, for example) because we think it necessary and for their benefit;
we might lack morality or perhaps have our own and disregard that of others or any societal norms;
we might view others as less 'worthy' than us;
we might be damaged in some way (born as, or possibly being from our parents, peers, or societal treatment/attitudes);

we might lack empathy for others (in general or at the time for various reasons);
we might harm others (those we love) to hurt ourselves (a form of self-sabotage or self-punishment);
we might simply enjoy harming others, and get habituated to such through feedback;
we might harm others in order to protect those we love, or do so in anticipation of such;
we might harm some - as in examples of mercy killing - to end a painful existence;
we may have been harmed ourselves and feel the need for revenge or to retaliate;
we might 'Other' some - simply disowning them as not being human (paedophiles, for example);
we often harm others by accident of course, and sometimes when we don't take enough care;
we might be affected by drugs or alcohol so as to be less in control;
we might just lose our temper or control of ourselves for a variety of reasons;
Our threshold for harming others might be lowered by circumstances, e.g., due to addictions or obsessions;
we might harm others in order to harm those we cannot harm, so these essentially being proxies;
we might harm others whilst defending ourselves, and this often being appropriate;

or any combination of these and to more or lesser extent.

You've noticed a gap in the list? Although debatable, many of the things that might cause harm to others could be associated with religious beliefs (the top section), even if many of these might also apply for other ideologies, but I think this perhaps does show that a religious belief could cause many harms as well as any good they do.

And this latter is my position, but not that easily demonstrated.

This is exactly how a street preacher from a serious evangelical religious movement would compose a corner preaching session.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

My point? My knowledge, my ignorance.
I know Dawkins, he doesn't fit within the argument of the OP.
The other three "horsemen", I don't know maybe.
Maybe I could agree that these other folks make unsupported claims about theology.
None of these supposedly smart people should be making such a broad claim as what is the point of this thread.
I'm happy to be critical along with you if I knew of such claims. I hoping someone provides something to be critical of.

It is hard to be critical of a view or even support such a view without specifics. The interview shows that Dawkins does not have the view that is stated in the OP. Maybe someone else holds this view.

So, I would also like to be critical of the person who makes the claim that all theologies are harmful. I just don't know who that person is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

With the types of people who will eventually/inevitably fall prey to the devices of these types of beliefs without substantial warrant, I would answer "yes." Yes, they are all harmful. Whether they do more good than harm is up for debate, but there will always be harm. Once people get it into their minds that all they have to do is a song and a dance as an explanation for something, then they can start justifying anything and everything using just the song and dance method. That sucks no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

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.

Theology is essentially untestable article of faith.

To base your belief system on untestable articles of faith, is deletrious by default.

Instead your belief system should be founded on testable evidence.

Not upon fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.
They argue for anarchy, but it is not real. They would call the police when it suits them.

They want to make their own version of morality. They want to act immorally if they so desire.
We can see what is happening in the west.
Political correctness is the order of the day.

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

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

Which of your revolting Gods though?
I assume you wasn't referring to either Zeus or Jesus. I also find your demonisation of atheism ignorant and offensive.

 

[firedragon]

My point? My knowledge, my ignorance.
I know Dawkins, he doesn't fit within the argument of the OP.
The other three "horsemen", I don't know maybe.
Maybe I could agree that these other folks make unsupported claims about theology.
None of these supposedly smart people should be making such a broad claim as what is the point of this thread.
I'm happy to be critical along with you if I knew of such claims. I hoping someone provides something to be critical of.

It is hard to be critical of a view or even support such a view without specifics. The interview shows that Dawkins does not have view that is stated in the OP. Maybe someone else holds this view.

So, I would also like to be critical of the person who makes the claim that all theologies are harmful. I just don't know who that person is.

Err. You missed the point of the OP. No problem.

I asked you whats the point of the video you shared. Dawkins interview with Mehdi. Its very old. Ive seen it. So why share it? Thats what I asked.

Nakosis. Dawkins has been criticised widely by other atheistic evolutionary biologists, etc etc for his fundamentalist approach making Darwinism like another religion. Dawkins said religious belief is one of the great evils. He even made a documentary called root of all evils. I already gave you the man Hitchens.

Nitpick. No worries.

 

[firedragon]

Theology is essentially untestable article of faith.

To base your belief system on untestable articles of faith, is deletrious by default.

Instead your belief system should be founded on testable evidence.

Not upon fantasy and wishful thinking.

I shall ignore the usual and habitual insults. Fantasy, wishful thinking, etc etc. I know these are repeated a lot on the internet.

What do you mean "testable evidence"? Are you an empiricist? Are you speaking about scientific evidence?

Can you explain?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

[

I shall ignore the usual and habitual insults. Fantasy, wishful thinking, etc etc. I know these are repeated a lot on the internet.

What do you mean "testable evidence"? Are you an empiricist? Are you speaking about scientific evidence?

Can you explain?

I shall ignore your ignorance. My post requires no further elucidation.

 

[firedragon]

[

I shall ignore your ignorance. My post requires no further elucidation.

Again, ignoring cheap ad hominem, when you say something like I want evidence, you have to give your epistemology.

 

[firedragon]

@Azrael Antilla Anyway, so why do you think theologies are harmful by default? Any research on it? Some historic data?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I shall ignore your ignorance.

Yeah, but you didn't answer. How do you in practice do "Instead your belief system should be founded on testable evidence."? I mean they are to me meaningless as they stand there as a string of words. I currently know of no belief system based on only testable evidence.
As a skeptic, I know I might have overlooked something, so you have to expand on your words. As they stand, they don't match how I understand testable evidence.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Again, ignoring cheap ad hominem, when you say something like I want evidence, you have to give your epistemology.

You're a joker.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're a joker.

Just answer with more words that explain testable evidence.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, but you didn't answer. How do you in practice do "Instead your belief system should be founded on testable evidence."? I mean they are to me meaningless as they stand there as a string of words. I currently know of no belief system based on only testable evidence.
As a skeptic, I know I might have overlooked something, so you have to expand in your words. As they stand, they don't match how I understand testable evidence.

You don't know what testable evidence is?

 

[firedragon]

You're a joker.

Hmm. Lol.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Just answer with more words that explain testable evidence.

Testable evidence. Is evidence that can be tested. Unlike mindless article of faith...