This topic was spurred by a discussion I had with my fiancee (and, actually now that I think about it, my earlier talks with LMNOP), who personally feels that religion is a comfort that we need not and in fact, shouldn't, "take away from people". On the other hand, I view it as an incredibly destructive forth in respects to both human progress and civil rights.
On a scale from 1-10, how dangerous do you feel religion is to the individual and the society at large? Why?
Jeremy
Member
Er... I'm not sure you can scale this on a 1 to 10. For some people it's perfectly harmless. Others it motivates to extreme destruction. Still others it's actually beneficial, motivating them to great charity (those are in the minority, unfortunately).
Okay fine, 8.
Mark the Pilgrim
Member
I don't know if it can be answered with a broad question like that. Because it largely depends on where, the context, whom, and why.
Here's an example: My experiences attending a Church of England primary school and an Anglican church when I was younger was actually very good. The people were concerned with the good side of Christianity - the imparting of good virtues like forgiveness, hard work, truthfulness and kindness. They also weren't anti-science and had a very well rounded world view. They also were very inclusive of other cultures. If I see my former reverend, I make a point to say hello to him. There is also the Christianity which encourages charity and goodwill, as seen in the Salvation Army and various other Christian charities. So as long as you have a fairly benign, unpolitical and tolerant form of Christianity such as the Anglican church in England, I would put the level of 'danger' at 1: the essential tenets are flawed and illogical, but it isn't harming anyone.
However, because I have lived in other countries before, I can see the harm it can do.
I've seen Christianity used to stigmatize others. Deny science for superstition and discriminate against homosexuals. I have a relative who in the '60s had suffered severe trauma to the head which subsequently resulted in brain damage, but was refused proper medical help by his parents and instead they blamed it on witchcraft. He has the intellect of a one year old now; he behaves like a feral child too.
Also, in my father's home country of Uganda, if you've been following the news, you can see they are going to pass this awful anti-homosexual bill. They're persecuting gays and lesbians right now and quoting scripture to back it up. I have an uncle who is a pastor and I know without a shadow of a doubt, that he is supporting this bill. I've known friends and relatives who would be okay if someone were to murder a man because he's gay. In fact when I lived in the Caribbean, there was this song that said "if you want to come be with us, you have to follow Leviticus" with relation to the Biblical verse against homosexuality.
I'd put the form of Christianity which encourages superstition, prejudice, radicalism at around a 10.
So it really depends.
Eidolon
Member
When practiced individually, religion can possibly be a beautiful and very spiritual thing. However, I think that when the religion is used as a tool to control masses of people to the will of a few, it tends to get out of hand. Religion is a great mind control tool to keep your masses under slavery.
In the wrong hands, definitely a 10.
Elemenope
Moderator
As a set of virulent memes, religion probably ranks up there with socio-political ideologies insofar as its tenacity, capacity to spread, ability to alter thought processes and action habits. As a thought virus it is well-tuned to ready-made human psychological structural flaws, like apophenia and anthropomorphic instincts, innate desire for explanations, and repetitive ritualistic behavior. So, in and of itself religion is on the playing field with a nuclear fire level of dangerous; a perfect ten.
However, most instantiations of religion are quite benign. Much like tuberculosis, very, very few of the carriers are actually malignantly symptomatic. Actually, a better metaphor would be toxoplasmosis infection; most of the time it is not dangerous, but infection with it can alter behavior in subtle ways that can cause harm given the right triggers or conditions. Sometimes, religion can even act in a manner similar to symbiotic gut bacteria; beneficial to the host.
Also, religion doesn't compete as well in a meme-rich environment, which is why one of the main religious survival strategies is to delegitimize competing memes directly; when it needs to compete for energy-space with secular ideologies and competing epistemological rule-sets, it tends to buckle and mutate. So, in reality, the actual harm of religion probably is a respectable but not Earth-shattering five or so. Not the scariest meme on the bloc, by any means.
"I don't know if it can be answered with a broad question like that. Because it largely depends on where, the context, whom, and why."
I guess what I was asking for was to weigh the negatives and positives of religion and say whether or not they felt it was dangerous. The 1-10 was really just to get a discussion going. I feel that the positives you lamented about are not necessarily derived from religion, and can be accessed even easier from a humanist viewpoint.
"When practiced individually, religion can possibly be a beautiful and very spiritual thing."
In my own opinion as an atheist, an individual practicing religion is simply self-delusion, and is not a beautiful thing.
Eidolon
Member
"In my own opinion as an atheist, an individual practicing religion is simply self-delusion, and is not a beautiful thing."
If that's their choice, who am I to try and sway them?
Look, if religion is just a good set of morals, teaching you to supposedly be a good person, then what's the difference between that, and myself being an atheist and having the same morals? I mean, I think that religion isn't needed so long as everyone can achieve the 'don't be a dick to people' policy. Again, it's when it finds it's way into the hands of those who will impose their own self-righteous will onto everyone else, that it becomes a danger to the whole of society.
Maybe 'beauty' wasn't the right word to use, I admit. I just think that so long as no one is trying to cram their beliefs down my throat, I won't cram my non-beliefs down theirs. =D
Mark the Pilgrim
Member
"I feel that the positives you lamented about are not necessarily derived from religion, and can be accessed even easier from a humanist viewpoint."
Obviously they aren't always derived from religion. But due to its pervasiveness in our culture, a lot of the time it does. Of course we could use humanism, which IMO would be preferable as it excludes the denial of reality in it, but benign forms of religion often act as a jump pad already in position which launches adherents into charity because they have been established for so long.
"In my own opinion as an atheist, an individual practicing religion is simply self-delusion, and is not a beautiful thing."
I'd rather if everyone were to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee, but even though religion is a form of self-delusion, I don't agree that it *cannot* be a beautiful thing. Now, I'm not saying that these things can't stem from humanism or a secular approach (we have many examples to highlight this), but great people such as Lord Denning, Martin Luther King, Florence Nightingale and others did derive their altruism from a more individualistic religion that emphasized the more positive tenets of their faith such as kindness, equality and fairness. I mean, I agree that they were deluded and that they *could* have come from elsewhere; but the fact remains it can have a positive impact on some people. Of course that's not to say that they would have been bad people without the faith, but the religious tenets did have some role to play in reaffirming their morals and providing them a crutch to lean on for advice.
" but benign forms of religion often act as a jump pad already in position which launches adherents into charity because they have been established for so long."
I would argue that presenting someone with a false version of reality in order to serve as a "jump pad" into charity is undesirable. Because, when the curtain is pulled back, those same people might not view charity in such a positive light.
" Of course that's not to say that they would have been bad people without the faith, but the religious tenets did have some role to play in reaffirming their morals and providing them a crutch to lean on for advice."
If MLK's sole reason for fighting racial discrimination was God, I would cease to see his actions as beautiful. The same goes for any other actions.
"If MLK's sole reason for fighting racial discrimination was God, I would cease to see his actions as beautiful. The same goes for any other actions."
Man, that's grim. What sort of moral system does that imply on your part? I take it you aren't a utilitarian? Maybe you've got some kind of pure Kantian thing going on?
Furthermore, not only do I personally think religion can be quite beautiful (although I'm clearly biased) but I actually disagree with your statement that self-delusion can't be a beautiful thing. Frankly, I think that's just flat wrong. Not only can people tell a "heroic" lie, they can actually believe it: fake it till you make works just fine in real life. On top of that, as a literature person I worry that you've eliminated most of art from your standard of beauty. Indulging in escapism of any kind, by this definition, is fundamentally less beautiful than merely examining the way things "really are." In that sort of scenario, the next logical step is just to say: well, a painting is clearly less beautiful than an examination of the wall outside your apartment window. One of them is real, but that picture on that canvas, no matter how nice it seems, isn't "real" in the same sense, and is therefore actively less-beautiful.
Granted, I'm extrapolating a bit here, but still...
Incidentally, I'm gratified to notice how many people here actually agree with me on this question: quite dangerous in the wrong hands, benign or better in good hands, averaging to an unspectacular medium. (Although I think the most useful thing to do with that ~5 is to compare it to almost every other ideological or social claim to see how it compares.) I get tired of people ranting that religion is somehow the single most dangerous problem currently facing humanity.
LMNOP, out of curiosity, do you think memes are a real thing? I can see them being a useful shorthand, but I've read snowcrash, and quite frankly I wasn't ever struck by "brain virus = merely useful shorthand." A little hard to tell because of how ironic that book gets at times. Are you being ironic, or do you think memes have some sort of objective existence, or are you using shorthand?
Mark the Pilgrim
Member
"If MLK's sole reason for fighting racial discrimination was God, I would cease to see his actions as beautiful. The same goes for any other actions."
I never said it was his sole reason, but rather an influencing factor.
For example, I'm involved in a disaster relief area for a specific part of the world. My mother is from that very same region. My primary reason for joining it is because I want to help the people there and make sure they have enough resources, etc. An influencing factor is the fact that my mother is from there. You wouldn't say that my helping out of those people on that small island is somehow an ugly thing based upon that reason, right? The point is, is that I'm helping others!
So obviously with figures like MLK, their main reason is undeniably to alleviate the position of others, particularly their brethren. But an influencing factor in that was undeniably some of the more positive Christian teachings they pick and chose.
When it comes to doing good or bad things, religion is not always the sole salient factor (although I will concede in some cases it can be), but rather it is an influencing one.
"I would argue that presenting someone with a false version of reality in order to serve as a "jump pad" into charity is undesirable..."
I get that it's undesirable due to its denial of reality on an intellectual ground, but the point of the OP and, what my post was debating on, was on the level of 'danger' it holds. And in that form it doesn't really hold much danger.
"...when the curtain is pulled back, those same people might not view charity in such a positive light."
Maybe, Maybe not. A lot of people lose their religion and still view charity in a positive light. Just in case it sounds like I'm back tracking, I've never said that religion is a sole creator of that drive or morality for that matter. My belief is that people would be doing it anyway, but religious teachings or a religious environment acts as a *motivator* at times. People feel compelled to do good things based on their upbringing or what form of mores and norms currently surround them. I feel compelled to do womens activism, as my mother was a feminist. That's not to say I'd be a chauvinist or willfully in denial about the realities of contemporary sexism, but it does serve as a motivational point.
"Man, that's grim. What sort of moral system does that imply on your part? I take it you aren't a utilitarian? Maybe you've got some kind of pure Kantian thing going on?"
I was talking in terms of beauty. If one's actions are solely based on their perception of a non-existent deity, I do not find them beautiful. Reward-seeking activity is rarely beautiful.
"On top of that, as a literature person I worry that you've eliminated most of art from your standard of beauty"
This paragraph was all over the place, so let me straighten out your thought. There is a world of difference from self-delusion in regards to the reality of a deity and knowingly escaping into literature/film/art. One is intentional, while the other is clearly not.
" I get tired of people ranting that religion is somehow the single most dangerous problem currently facing humanity."
I don't think it's the single most dangerous, but it's the largest impediment standing in our way to solving many of the most dangerous problems. Global warming? Ah, Christians don't like that idea! Moving towards a more global government? Yikes, 666!! Science of morality? Hell no, we won't go!
" I'm involved in a disaster relief area for a specific part of the world."
Helping those around you more immediately is not an ugly thing. Being partial to a certain location is not only a useful evolutionary tool, but one that is very important in human progress.
You're missing my overall point, though. My point was indeed that MLK was not solely influenced by his religious views, and that was why his actions were beautiful to me.
"I get that it's undesirable due to its denial of reality on an intellectual ground, but the point of the OP and, what my post was debating on, was on the level of 'danger' it holds. And in that form it doesn't really hold much danger."
You spoke about it being a "beautiful" thing, not a dangerous thing. Although, I would argue that aid in the form of religion can and is a dangerous thing. Religion in dangerous, poverty-stricken countries generally does not turn out well. Again, the idea that charity and religion are intertwined is an absolutely bogus idea.
"y belief is that people would be doing it anyway, but religious teachings or a religious environment acts as a *motivator* at times."
This is backtracking. You said it was beautiful because people like MLK "derived their altruism from their individualistic faith". Now you are saying "well, they'd still be doing it, but this would motivate them."
Well, you know what else would motivate MLK? People of the same race being hung by people in white hoods, or being forced to use separate bathrooms, restaurants, or drinking fountains. To say that religion is a beautiful thing because it "may have served as a motivator at times" is kind of silly, but it's too small of a point for me to desire to argue it any further.
Elemenope
Moderator
LMNOP, out of curiosity, do you think memes are a real thing? I can see them being a useful shorthand, but I've read snowcrash, and quite frankly I wasn't ever struck by "brain virus = merely useful shorthand." A little hard to tell because of how ironic that book gets at time
I think memes, whether they exist or not, are a good model for describing the behavior of persistent thoughts across populations. I tend to doubt that memes exist at the machine code level, like in Snow Crash (i.e. I don't believe that the programming language of the mind is manipulable by expressible thoughts at the machine code level; the part that governs interpreting stimuli is a highly object-oriented language by all indications, and can be manipulated from input only at the object level). But, yes, there does seem to be an objective existence of memes, insofar as we can format-shift them reliably. Take the ideas that are in a book, a person can read that book, and then restate those ideas in different words in another book; it seems more conducive to analysis to postulate a continuity of thought through each step of the process, starting with the data in the book and ending with the related data in the new book.
"I was talking in terms of beauty. If one's actions are solely based on their perception of a non-existent deity, I do not find them beautiful. Reward-seeking activity is rarely beautiful."
I disagree again, although you didn't phrase this statement with quite the same absolutism as before: reward seeking behavior is quite often beautiful. Children demonstrate high levels of reward seeking behavior during the course of normal development, and a child's healthy development is regarded by many as something beautiful. I know you weren't talking about morality, but what is beautiful is strongly linked with what is moral.
"This paragraph was all over the place, so let me straighten out your thought. There is a world of difference from self-delusion in regards to the reality of a deity and knowingly escaping into literature/film/art. One is intentional, while the other is clearly not."
Gee, thanks for straightening out my thought. It is precisely my argument that there is *not* a world of difference between the two. If you'd like to argue that it is different, please go ahead and do so, but you haven't done so yet. Awfully hard for me to back up my "all over the place" thought when your criticism seems to be merely that the difference is self-evident.
If you'd like to distinguish primarily between intentional and unintentional self-deception, that's certainly fine. But are you saying that intentional self-deception is somehow *better* than unintentional self-deception? That seems extremely counter-intuitive to me.
Clearly MLK was motivated by things other than his religion, but insofar as he was motivated by religion, you find his actions no longer beautiful. That's the genetic fallacy in a nutshell, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Shouldn't results matter here? You are seeming to indicate that they don't.
Maybe I'm reading too much into what you've actually written. I *am* extrapolating a bit, to be sure. I'm just trying to deal with the implications of your position; if I have your position wrong then I obviously can't do that, so feel free to enlighten me as to what you actually think if you don't like the direction I'm heading. (But try not to straighten out my thinking: makes you sound like big brother, yo.)
Kodie
Member
I don't know how dangerous religion is. I don't know how dangerous it is to be wrong-headed in an isolated way. For example, your religious belief may tell you it's bad to be gay. I don't think that opinion (isolated) has much of a dangerous effect. If that's how you feel, are you causing harm to gay people? If you don't vote, if you don't prevent them from living or working among you, it is just an unpleasant aspect of your personality - is that harmful, just to be an unpleasant person? But are you marching, protesting, voting, or spreading your hate to your children? Are you beating anyone to death? Are you purposely not hiring them or letting them rent in your properties, or vandalizing them, or even just walking down the street making horrible remarks to gay people? If you hate something, I think it is very hard to keep that hate a secret, so it will cause harm, even if it is minimal (nonacceptance) compared to heinous (murder and voting and spreading).
Part of me thinks, hey, we all hate something, and I have no serious issue with someone's choice to irrationally hate a group of people. One need not be religious to hate something irrationally, either. Often as not, religion is just an excuse to hate something, not the cause of the hate. I still mostly believe in an individual's right to hate people if they want to, but also in another individual's right to attempt to educate them or expose them to reason. The damage comes in when they teach their children to hate, or prevent this population from enjoying rights like marriage or eating at a restaurant or buying/renting property or having a job or adopting children. Their right to hate should be over-ridden by societal insistence that these people they hate have the same basic rights despite anyone hating them. Certainly, nobody should be beaten to death, that is beyond sick.
What most people seem to do, what I see many atheists do, is the whole "tolerance" thing. I grew up where religion didn't seem like a big deal to anyone, and so it actually surprised me to find out people take any of it seriously. To me, it is like having some Irish heritage, you bring it up every St. Patrick's Day or whatever, but it doesn't consume every aspect of your life. I think they call it C&E Catholics, liberal Christians and Jews, etc., whatever they were raised in, lazy. It seems to give them some light spirituality, they believe in god, but they don't really pay attention to the pope with regard to birth control or what priests are molesting altar boys, etc., they give up something really easy for lent, etc.
Are these people harmful? On one hand no, and another yes. They are not paying attention to the horrors, they are living in sort of a gauzy world where their faith is intact, as lazy as it is, as helpful as it might be at times, they don't worry about what's really happening. They are in denial. "Your criticisms of religion don't apply to me" and hide their heads in the sand. I kind of think that's harmful overall. They're not harmful to others, they don't think there's a problem, and they're not critical thinkers. Their religion resides in a partition of their life, all help to them when they need it, nothing to do with it when they don't. People who just don't feel the need to connect the dots. But: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
I tend to think most believers are in this latter group, so the direct harm is caused by a much smaller, but more violent or oppressive group of believers. The larger group is complacent and tolerant. Atheists tend to be divided whether they should be complacent (cowardly? polite?) or address the horrifying aspects of the smaller extremely harmful groups. Although it seems like there are more atheists now than ever, I think analogous to the religions, a larger group of complacent and tolerant and unaware non-believers exist, and at the "extreme" would be the aware and vocal set. So is religion harmful? It censors some atheists from having the guts to address problems too. They compartmentalize their lack of belief as something they thought over once and put in a drawer. It doesn't come up much because they don't bring it up or communicate regarding it. It even tends atheists to marginalize other atheists who do speak out. So the harms of even a liberal, tolerant religious segment of society is that it's gauche to make waves, to recognize and vocalize the obvious problems. It's much better to pretend they aren't there. I would call that maybe a 7.5, no matter how at peace and spiritual or charitable they otherwise are. They are using their religion selfishly, it's a luxury to them to get all the comfort without having any of the awareness, and socializing many atheists to reside in that comfortable ignorance.
Of course, I think it's kind of ass-like to attempt to remove someone's crutch right when they're using it, like a hospital waiting room or a funeral. They don't seem to see any harm in addressing atheists with religious platitudes at such occasions, that makes them asses in crisis situations. They are trying to add comfort to the woeful, so their intentions are alright, which makes it really ass-like to piss on it then also. I think that's a minor but real problem, these airheads go about life really, no critical thinking or awareness beyond their own selfish comfort, saying false things without thinking what they mean or whether they are appropriate. On the scale of being beaten to death or being emotionally kicked in the crotch by a religionist in a time of need, I guess most of them don't beat anyone to death, but perhaps resorting to harassing them to suicide, most of them are more likely to say a stupid thing trying to help. Delusions are just harmful.
"I know you weren't talking about morality, but what is beautiful is strongly linked with what is moral."
Again, these concepts are completely different. The Grand Canyon is beautiful, but completely amoral. There is no moral quality to the Grand Canyon.
" It is precisely my argument that there is *not* a world of difference between the two."
When a Christian reads the Bible they are reading what they feel is a set of valid historical, spiritual, and metaphysical propositions about the world. When I read Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, I know I am reading fiction, and am allowing myself to escape into the fictitious world. There is a world of difference, because the Christian extrapolates their fantasy into reality, while mine remains a fantasy that I recognize as such.
This is why I felt your paragraph was all over the place. First, you start by mentioning 'heroic lies", quickly transitioned into "fake it until you make it", then somehow transitioned into the idea that I don't feel a picture can be beautiful because it is not real. Well, the picture is real - it is just a separate object than its depiction.
"Clearly MLK was motivated by things other than his religion, but insofar as he was motivated by religion, you find his actions no longer beautiful."
I said if MLK was solely influenced by religion, I would no longer feel his actions were beautiful. When people do the right things by virtue of a completely fallacious premise, I don't find it beautiful. For example, if there was a small child who had a terminal illness which could only be healed by taking a dose of poison, and someone gave him poison expecting to kill him, would it still have been a beautiful act if it did in fact heal him?
Elemenope
Moderator
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
I have never been able to wrap my brain around this way of thinking. I really can't. One of the great things about science as a human social discipline (as opposed to science in its obvious epistemological role) is that it *doesn't have to be* engaged in Kulturkampf the way that religion is obligated on some level to be. Adopting the attitude that everyone who isn't with me is my enemy is to adopt what I think is the least admirable (and ultimately least adaptive) gene in the religion meme to serve secular humanism; a grave error. Many religious people recognize this feature to be maladaptive (MLK is in fact a great example), and it is certainly true the religion *need not* maintain this genetic inheritance. There is an overquoted Nietzsche passage that applies perfectly, about fighting monsters; why make the same mistakes?
Again, these concepts are completely different. The Grand Canyon is beautiful, but completely amoral. There is no moral quality to the Grand Canyon.
But it does occupy a moral dimension. Would it be immoral to destroy the Grand Canyon? I think it would be. At the very least, the creation and destruction of purely aesthetic objects is not itself a purely aesthetic concern.
First, you start by mentioning 'heroic lies", quickly transitioned into "fake it until you make it", then somehow transitioned into the idea that I don't feel a picture can be beautiful because it is not real. Well, the picture is real - it is just a separate object than its depiction.
Images may be treacherous, but only to the extent that we become actually confused about the reality of a depiction. It does not necessarily follow that because the image is treacherous the object that it refers to is as well, even if that object itself doesn't exist. Graham Chapman, Patrick Stewart, and Sean Connery have all played King Arthur on film, and none of them are really King Arthur, not least of which because it is doubtful he even existed. And yet, the "heroic lie" or heroic myth that they are recounting through the character they play tells a story of significance to human existence. In a similar way, humans may have a kaleidescopic view of God, whether it exists or not, and the only real danger is that they are seduced by one image of God and begin to hate the others (and those who hold them), and not that they hold the belief itself.
I said if MLK was solely influenced by religion, I would no longer feel his actions were beautiful. When people do the right things by virtue of a completely fallacious premise, I don't find it beautiful. For example, if there was a small child who had a terminal illness which could only be healed by taking a dose of poison, and someone gave him poison expecting to kill him, would it still have been a beautiful act if it did in fact heal him?
There's a helluva lot bundled up with your counterexample that isn't present in the example of MLK. To the extent that intentionality matters to the moral valence of an act, certainly wanting to help (as MLK did) is different in kind from wanting to harm and *accidentally* helping. And as for your example, the event is beautiful in itself (an ironic affirmation of life, if you will) even if we do not esteem the intentions of the act or even find those intentions repulsive. That is to say, we may find the intent and attempt to murder evil, and still find the result (as you described it) ironically beautiful, consonant with a sense of rectitude reinforced by it being an example of frustrated evil.
"But it does occupy a moral dimension. Would it be immoral to destroy the Grand Canyon? I think it would be. At the very least, the creation and destruction of purely aesthetic objects is not itself a purely aesthetic concern."
The Grand Canyon itself is amoral. When you act upon it, of course it can be moral or immoral. I don't think destroying the Grand Canyon would be immoral simply because it's beautiful, though. Destroying something beautiful is not an inherently immoral act. I would say it would be immoral (based on the intentionality, actually, is it being destroyed to promote some sort of human well-being?) based on the premise that we shouldn't go around destroying natural habitats without really convincing reasons.
" In a similar way, humans may have a kaleidescopic view of God, whether it exists or not, and the only real danger is that they are seduced by one image of God and begin to hate the others (and those who hold them), and not that they hold the belief itself."
I disagree, because most Christians don't "hate" the other images of God, they simply see them as false. The danger of belief in God is that it puts a further separation between humankind and reality, one that serves as a barrier to large steps of progress.
" To the extent that intentionality matters to the moral valence of an act, certainly wanting to help (as MLK did) is different in kind from wanting to harm and *accidentally* helping."
I was illustrating the idea that intentionality matters. I am not asserting that MLK acted as he did solely on his religious faith, but had he been doing so, I would not view his actions as beautiful. As to my own example, of course the irony of the situation is beautiful in a way, but we are talking about viewing the specified actions as beautiful. I never claimed that I would cease to find the Civil Rights Movement a beautiful concept, but MLK's specific actions (had he been acting solely under the motive of religious faith) would cease to be glorified in my mind.
Little_Bird
Member
I am obviously a little late, but I am going to put religion on 1-10, on the dangerous scale. Along with everything else in the world. It is people who make things dangerous, guns, swords, tables, pillows. All can be used dangerously. But none are required to do so. Religion, similar to a table or pillow (yet unlike a gun or sword) did not originate with dangerous actions in mind. Similar to the theory of evolution even. Not intended to be dangerous, but, like everything else in this world, it could be used dangerously.
Little_Bird
Member
I said it "could be". And maybe it has, I do not know. It is similar to Christianity, IN THAT, it COULD be used for dangerous things. This seems a given. Islam COULD be used dangerously. The teachings of Plato could be used dangerously. Not the intention obviously. And it would take some creative readings of Plato but it could be done. How has Christianity been used dangerously?
"How has Christianity been used dangerously?"
The Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the bombing of abortion clinics... the list goes on, and on, and on.
Mark the Pilgrim
Member
Read my original post, I share more or less the same opinion as you to a degree. I just misread yours and thought you were gonna bring up some weird nazi/evolution link. Ha, sorry.
But yeah. Crusades, witch hunts, the whole shebang justified by Christianity in the wrong hands.
Little_Bird
Member
The Crusades? That would be called justifiable violence. Anyone who thinks that the Crusades were based on simple Christian violence and hatred of Islam needs to do their research. No one complains when the U.S. goes to war for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Dangerous? yes. Justified? yes.
Furthermore, I know that Christianity had been used dangerously. Just like about everything else in the world. What solutions are there? none.
"Furthermore, I know that Christianity had been used dangerously. Just like about everything else in the world. What solutions are there? none."
Get rid of Christianity. Then we wouldn't be as tempted to kill each other based off of which fairy tale we did or didn't believe in.
Little_Bird
Member
Then what else should be get rid of? Guns? Evolutionary theory? Any world view that contradicts yours? Don't be absurd. All attempts at getting rid of Christianity has failed miserably. People are tempted to kill each other far more often by jealousy or anger. We cannot control people. Not all Christians have killed someone. You can't take 2000 years of the history of CHristianity and then say "All Christians are like this! Let's get rid of them!"
"Then what else should be get rid of? Guns? "
If we could insure that everyone in the world would get rid of guns, I would be more than happy to do so. The negative side of owning guns far outweighs any minor positives.
"Evolutionary theory?"
Why do you keep acting as if evolutionary theory has the potential to be dangerous. How could it possibly be so?
" All attempts at getting rid of Christianity has failed miserably."
They *have* failed miserably because there weren't many viable alternatives. However, I firmly believe that as scientific knowledge progresses, over the next few centuries Christianity will cease to be a dominant worldview.
"You can't take 2000 years of the history of CHristianity and then say "All Christians are like this! Let's get rid of them!""
It has nothing to do with whether or not all Christians are bad people, but has far more to do with the worldview itself being false and inherently divisive. The same thing happened with pantheon of ancient Greece and the paganism of Romans, the myth of Christianity will eventually fall by the wayside, I would just like to see it happen quicker.
Little_Bird
Member
One misspelled word and you jump right on it. Ok. First. How does Christianity have the potential to be dangerous? Do not cite previous examples. Tell me what it would take for it to be dangerous in the future.
I want to take this time to mention you don't need to get all up in arms about things. We are just talking. I am open to being wrong about things. You should consider taking the same stance not claiming things are mythical without looking into them.
"How does Christianity have the potential to be dangerous? Do not cite previous examples. Tell me what it would take for it to be dangerous in the future."
Not allowing homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, blockading valuable scientific education to youth (especially in America), denying the existence of global warming being caused by man, the aversion to a more global government... these are just a few. Although past examples are also perfect examples of how it has been dangerous of the future, and will likely rear their ugly heads again.
"I want to take this time to mention you don't need to get all up in arms about things. We are just talking. I am open to being wrong about things. You should consider taking the same stance not claiming things are mythical without looking into them."
I'm not up in arms about anything. Christianity is a myth. I was born and raised in Christianity and have poured a great deal of my life into studying the Bible and the claims within, and am very confident in my assertion of it being a myth.
Little_Bird
Member
"Not allowing homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, blockading valuable scientific education to youth (especially in America), denying the existence of global warming being caused by man, the aversion to a more global government... these are just a few. Although past examples are also perfect examples of how it has been dangerous of the future, and will likely rear their ugly heads again."
These sound like CURRENT examples actually. I can't say my thoughts on those subjects other than homosexuals and their rights. I will say they deserve the same rights as every one else. But that is another matter. What I meant is, any organized group of people can commit a dangerous act. Any one who follows a certain worldview is part of an organized (to some extent) group of people.
"I'm not up in arms about anything. Christianity is a myth. I was born and raised in Christianity and have poured a great deal of my life into studying the Bible and the claims within, and am very confident in my assertion of it being a myth."
Ok. I accept that. But you are edging near being insulting, first to my intelligence. And that is unnecessary. Different beliefs. It doesn't mean one of us is an idiot. I am being accepting. It doesn't need to get all crazy.
You must log in to post.
