Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[halbhh]

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.

First, while I'd have an instant answer to the significantly different question: "Theologies -- Harmful?" -- just 'yes'. But you added the word "all".....

And that "all" gets to a less likely thing then: every instance in all cases. And that would be a stretch even for me to agree with, as someone might be able to have a theology were they are not merely rationalizing whatever they wish to think, but truly seek God. Or a mix. So, it's a mixed picture, fairly often.

In practice, theology for a believer isn't always 100% harmful. Just mostly, most often.

But, still, over time, even the best theology can cause a problem.

Becoming....too tidy, eventually too stultifying, too presumptuous we are superior to God in a key way: totally knowing all about Him, even if just as a subtly felt situation, without being admitted....so I guess I'll go with the 'yes' on this one, even though some will have a theology of the moment that isn't harmful, for now.

So, to summarize: God isn't a...static object we can characterize (i.e. -- and then that will inevitably cause to some extent an effect that we are done with Him, and are putting Him on a shelf to some extent, etc.)

Like a statue, ended, finished. Nothing more coming.

Instead, a living, dynamic Being able to do the unexpected.

 

[halbhh]

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.

By the way, that attitude (judging and condemning) would be very much the opposite of what Christ instructed us to do.

He went out of His way to find the sinners and mainly associate with them, and not the self righteous.

So, that attitude of judging some for their sins and excommunicating them is the opposite of what Christ did, and disobeys His instructions to us, so, for many or most of us that believe in Christ (note the word: 'believe' -- i.e. not merely identify with a church, etc.), that would be markedly and emphatically un-Christian, actually, since He directly says in clear wording that those who are His will follow His teaching, and work to do as He says (however imperfectly at some moment, still aiming that way).

So, that a person does crimes like you used as your examples doesn't at all tell us whether or not they will end up following Christ. They might. (some will, some won't) It's always a wait and see, just like He showed us in his teachings.

 

[firedragon]

By the way, that attitude (judging and condemning) would be very much the opposite of what Christ instructed us to do.

He went out of His way to find the sinners and mainly associate with them, and not the self righteous.

So, that attitude of judging some for their sins and excommunicating them is the opposite of what Christ did, and disobeys His instructions to us, so, for many or most of us that believe in Christ (note the word: 'believe' -- i.e. not merely identify with a church, etc.), that would be markedly and emphatically un-Christian, actually, since He directly says in clear wording that those who are His will follow His teaching, and work to do as He says (however imperfectly at some moment, still aiming that way).

So, that a person does crimes like you used as your examples doesn't at all tell us whether or not they will end up following Christ. They might. (some will, some won't) It's always a wait and see, just like He showed us in his teachings.

No problem.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

I'll be on the streets tomorrow then. Is it well paid?

 

[firedragon]

I'll be on the streets tomorrow then. Is it well paid?

Good for you.

 

[Nakosis]

i think you can find at least one in this thread for the words harmful and other negative words.

Thanks, got it.

So basically I see the question being asked is what is the harm in unverified belief.
Or actually requesting studies/evidence which support having a belief which can't be verified is harmful.

I'm not aware of any, however I think common sense can provide the argument.
Perhaps the reason for a lack of scientific studies is the assumption that common sense/understanding should suffice.
(the following is paraphrased from somewhere)

Lets say you see a building off in the distance with a door, no widows or any means to determine what is inside the building.
You wonder to yourself what might be in the building.
You notice another person next to you. You mention your curiosity of what might be in the building.
They tell you that they believe there exists three floors. One called heaven, one called hell, one call earth.
In heaven exists a bunch of fairies. In hell demons and on earth, people made of clay.

You leave, go away for a year or two. Come back and find this same observer. You ask if they've discovered anything new. They repeat what they originally belief but you find their belief has evolved. Now they tell that heaven has a fairy queen and this queen has issued a set of commands for the clay people on earth which if they don't follow get sent to live among the demons as a punishment.

You may sit and discuss this belief for a time.

Eventually a third observer shows up the second observer starts to explain what he believes is going on inside the building. The third observer agrees with some of this but disagrees with other points made. These two argue about who is correct in their belief.

You find yourself at a loss at the passion these two are arguing the about the truth of their belief which neither has verified any part of their belief.

You come up with the novel idea to go look inside the building. You reach the building, open the door to find nothing inside. No fairies, no clay people, no demons. Just empty space. So you go back to these other two observer with the knowledge that the building is empty.

You explain to them you found nothing in the building. Their response, that of course you didn't see anything because you didn't believe the truth. Only those that first accept the truth of their belief can actually see it. You say, ok come with me to take a look inside. Their response is that it is unnecessary for them to verify their belief because they already know the truth.

This is about the time most will throw up their hands and walk away.

So the harm is that belief leaves no room for facts. One can base their knowledge on facts that they've verified or beliefs that can't be verified.
To me it seems obvious that knowledge based on fact versus knowledge based on unverified belief would provide a better chance of allowing one to achieve their goals, whatever they happen to be.

 

[firedragon]

So the harm is that belief leaves no room for facts.

1. Facts on what?
2. What ever your answer to 1 is, how is that harmful by default?
3. What is the evidence?

Peace.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

After reading your posts I would say in your case, yes, harmful.

 

[firedragon]

After reading your posts I would say in your case, yes, harmful.

Great. Thanks.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

It's common to see believers sin. "Thou shalt not kill," but many theists don't object to wars. Reverend John Hagee said that we have to pray to Jesus to win the war (kill more effectively).

Theists can't claim that atheists harmful because there is little data to support that.

Theists have a track record of gore (Crusades, Inquisition, Iraq and Afghanistan wars and torture camps). Initially, Hitler was Christian and he waged a murderous and torturous campaign against Jews with wild support of Germans.

 

[Nakosis]

1. Facts on what?

reality

2. What ever your answer to 1 is, how is that harmful by default?

One person has examined a river and found it to be too deep and too swift to cross.
Another has offered a belief that crossing a river is perfectly safe.
Who's claim is more likely to lead to a successful choice?

3. What is the evidence?

Verified belief.

Peace.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

The Religious Right voted in President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said that regulations were expensive and hurt corporate profits (if they can't pollute God's environment, it costs mammon....if they can't cheat customers, they can't make as much mammon). Deregulation was a major point of Reagan. It resulted in the failure of the banking system FSLIC went broke. FDIC went broke under Reagan, as well. Republicans in Congress voted to not rescue FDIC, and let the banks collapse and currency fail. No other nation would trust the US with loans or trade if its money failed.

So, President Reagan cut the size of government. Without government, you'd have anarchy. Thus, the Religious Right are for anarchy. Atheists largely oppose Religious Right candidates, so atheists are against anarchy.

Atheists aren't anti-authority, they just don't believe in God.

 

[Clara Tea]

reality

One person has examined a river and found it to be too deep and too swift to cross.
Another has offered a belief that crossing a river is perfectly safe.
Who's claim is more likely to lead to a successful choice?

Verified belief.

We could vote about crossing a river, but ultimately, the river and crosser make the determination.

 

[Nakosis]

We could vote about crossing a river, but ultimately, the river and crosser make the determination.

Sure you could vote but might end up with someone like Trump leading us across.

 

[firedragon]

reality

So what is your definition of reality which is a fact, which is defied by theology? How do you prove it? whats the evidence?

One person has examined a river and found it to be too deep and too swift to cross.
Another has offered a belief that crossing a river is perfectly safe.
Who's claim is more likely to lead to a successful choice?

Thats just preaching Nakosis. Its not evidence. This is what some priests do in their respective religious gatherings.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (very important in a time of AIDS). Theists believe that dispensing contraceptives encourages out of wedlock sex.

 

[Clara Tea]

So what is your definition of reality which is a fact, which is defied by theology? How do you prove it? whats the evidence?



Thats just preaching Nakosis. Its not evidence. This is what some priests do in their respective religious gatherings.

Reality is overrated. Lets form a religion of Fred Flintstone cartoons.

 

[firedragon]

It's common to see believers sin. "Thou shalt not kill,"

Apparently, its "thou shall not murder".

but many theists don't object to wars

More wars are for secular reasons. Maybe if you put a little bit of study into it. Actually, 93% of all wars are for secular reasons.

Reverend John Hagee said that we have to pray to Jesus to win the war (kill more effectively).

Yeah. George Bush did that too.

Theists have a track record of gore

If that is your criteria, you should do some research. Only 7% of wars are motivated by religion.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Reality is overrated. Lets form a religion of Fred Flintstone cartoons.

Thanks for the commentary. Nice.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is a cool thread and an interesting topic.

As a skeptic and atheist, I think theology can only exist within a fundamentally flawed epistemology.

If you accept that your theology is merely an exercise of your personal imagination, then it can be useful as an introspective tool. You can explore your values, hopes, purpose, and other deep personal insights. However, if you want to claim or believe that these insights have any correspondence to the world outside of your thoughts and imagination, theology lacks any tools to justify such claims or beliefs.

All of the modern tools of reason and logic that we have discovered in our long march of progress, which have demonstrated again and again their ability to lead to accurate conclusions about reality, do not support any theological consideration that I'm aware of. If you accept such theological ideas, and use them as a conceptual scaffold for other ideas you find believable, then you're setting yourself up to believe a lot of false or unverifiable things. And yes, I think that can become a problem that can harm yourself and people around you.

There is no logic to love your baby. It's an eating, crying, poop machine. Just chuck it out a window....less hassle.

Is logic the only criteria?

Measure love...what do we use for a yardstick (no crude jokes, please). Some emotions are difficult to quantify.

Must we prove everything that we believe? Must you prove that a car won't run over you if you cross a street? It must be difficult living in a world of trust, when you have no logical basis for that trust. Your wife could cheat on you (there is no logical reason for her to stay).

Faith and trust are very similar. We all have trust in something or someone. We can't all prove that our trust is justified.