Is being religious harmless?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do people insist that if you don't treat your religion with fanaticism you are not very serious about it?

I don't think I insist on it, but I certainly get that impression. I find the teachings of Christianity to be fairly clear on the main points and they are fairly drastic. I don't see how can claim to believe in Jesus yet not actually give all your things to the poor and go around preaching as he did.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here in South Africa, even though there is no official racism (aparthied), there is still a significant amount of segregation. When I see movies about the US, I see a similar pattern. I see movies about schools where the different ethnic groups all stick together and wont mix with each other socially.
We all know about incidences where this sort of divis ...[text shortened]... chools, but rather the people who sit back and say "I'm not like those fundamentalists".

Clans and tribes have existed even without any such vehicles for divisiveness as race or religion. Do you think they were less violent because their differences were smaller?

Differences can be found everywhere. The answer to divisiveness is not attempting to suppress differences but inclusiveness. Acceptance of religious difference (both by theists and atheists) is the path to inclusiveness and to avoid the harms you describe.

This is the same reason why more diverse (or disaggregated) societies tend to display less divisiveness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think I insist on it, but I certainly get that impression. I find the teachings of Christianity to be fairly clear on the main points and they are fairly drastic. I don't see how can claim to believe in Jesus yet not actually give all your things to the poor and go around preaching as he did.

again with the black or white view. some things can be gray. jesus doesn't say no to rich people. he just says you should know when to say enough. and about going around preaching... imagine if all would do that, who will be left to preach to. like many things in the bible, that is obsolete now. you don't have to preach the word of god when one could hear it or read it freely. it was needed then when they didn't have tv, internet and books. it was a new thing and needed publicity. you do whatever you can to bash religion yet you fail to demonstrate how me believing in God makes me a lesser being. why your philosophy is superior? why God cannot exist when there isn't evidence either way? why nobody is calling superstring theory a religion since we all now there is no proof of it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My basic argument is that people who say "There is no harm in going to Church even though I am not really that religious myself" are wrong. There is harm and I am trying to show that that harm can often be significant.

Quite honestly, I don't see what harm popping into Church on Sundays (for the singing?) can do. The fact that there are hypocritical bigots who go to Church doesn't prove that religion is harmful. You also find bigots roaming the aisles of supermarkets or sitting at home watching sport on TV. Maybe some bigots go to church to improve their standing within a particular community -- but it doesn't follow from there that religion is harmful.

What else have you got?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Quite honestly, I don't see what harm popping into Church on Sundays (for the singing?) can do. The fact that there are hypocritical bigots who go to Church doesn't prove that religion is harmful. You also find bigots roaming the aisles of supermarkets or sitting at home watching sport on TV. Maybe some bigots go to church to improve their standing within a particular community -- but it doesn't follow from there that religion is harmful.

I fully agree that there are some people who manage to do it without being bigoted about it. The question then is whether religion is to blame for those that are bigoted (in the religious bigot cases). If so, then is being popping into Church on Sunday encouraging the rise of bigotism?
I asked the question earlier about race. If we could all become one race, would the world be a better place?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
jesus doesn't say no to rich people.

Yes. It sure looks black and white to me, but then religious people seem to be able to overlook the obvious and twist the words of the Bible to suit whatever lifestyle they choose.

How do you interpret getting a camel through the eye of a needle?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
imagine if all would do that, who will be left to preach to.

I suppose one could start with us atheists, then move on to the Muslims, the Hindus and the Buddhists.

like many things in the bible, that is obsolete now.
We are all be Christian then?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you do whatever you can to bash religion yet you fail to demonstrate how me believing in God makes me a lesser being. why your philosophy is superior?

I never said you were a lesser being. You seem to take great offense from both me and Dawkins and put words in our mouths that we never uttered.
I think my philosophy is superior for many reasons, one of them is under discussion in this thread.

why God cannot exist when there isn't evidence either way?
Nobody said he cant. However there is plenty of evidence both ways. You seem to love playing the neutral card.

why nobody is calling superstring theory a religion since we all now there is no proof of it?
If it has blind followers then maybe it is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. It sure looks black and white to me, but then religious people seem to be able to overlook the obvious and twist the words of the Bible to suit whatever lifestyle they choose.

How do you interpret getting a camel through the eye of a needle?

a rich bastard that gathered wealth, much more than he could spend in a lifetime but didn't give anything back. instead he gathered and gathered without another reason than having more. and when it was time to kick the bucket, instead of giving much of his fortune to the poor, he probably left it to his relatives(in a way giving it to himself, his memory)


a rich person who got rich without scrwing others, through hard work, who gave to others. who when he died only left his relatives enough to live a plentiful life and the rest again to society will get to heaven with no problems.

for example bill gates gathered wealth and now he decided he has enough and is now organizing charity stuff. well it's a good start

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do people insist that if you don't treat your religion with fanaticism you are not very serious about it? Why are religious people viewed as mindless drones and atheists are the freethinkers of tomorrow?
why are all religious people associated retarded extremists: like a muslim being associated with a muslim terrorist blowing himself up or a christian ...[text shortened]... of religion because the good aspects happen only "if you don't take religion seriously...."

why do people insist that if you don't treat your religion with fanaticism you are not very serious about it?

I don't. However, your post basically ruled out quite a large part of the teachings of most religions.

Why are religious people viewed as mindless drones and atheists are the freethinkers of tomorrow?

Freethinkers of TODAY would be closer. Many religious people do little to no critical thinking of their belief system, and when you discuss things with them, many seem ignorant of basic logic.

why are all religious people associated retarded extremists: like a muslim being associated with a muslim terrorist blowing himself up or a christian being labeled as creationist, inquisitor or brainwasher?

I do not espouce the position that all religious people are going to blow themselves up, but all religious people facilitate those which do. The moderates lend respectability to the extremists, in many cases.
In the vast majority of cases, religious people will inadvertantly or otherwise indoctrinate their children into their religion before the child is able to form an independant opinion.


this is prejudice and you know it. with this way of thinking of course you will only find harmful aspects of religion because the good aspects happen only "if you don't take religion seriously...."

Or perhaps not prejudice, but rather clarity. You don't like your beliefs being critically analysed, and like generations before you're screaming "persecution" now. Get over it. Organised religion in more cases than you'd perhaps realise does cause the effects noted by me and others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said you were a lesser being. You seem to take great offense from both me and Dawkins and put words in our mouths that we never uttered.
I think my philosophy is superior for many reasons, one of them is under discussion in this thread.

[b]why God cannot exist when there isn't evidence either way?
Nobody said he cant. However there is ple ...[text shortened]... gion since we all now there is no proof of it?[/b]
If it has blind followers then maybe it is.[/b]

and again with the black and white. what annoys me most about atheists like yourself or dawkings is your conviction you cannot possibly be wrong and of course being oblivious about the fact you are just as religious as me. in your atheism.

superstring theory has people trying to prove it, but it is not yet proven. therefore by your standards it must be a religion. sure, most scientists will not make an important decision based on the belief that "string theory" says something. and likewise decent theists will not bet on a horse because they prayed to god for that horse to win.

if you say your philosphy is better then you are saying that my philosophy is worse. and i am less than you for choosing a lesser philosophy.

Originally posted by Palynka
Differences can be found everywhere. The answer to divisiveness is not attempting to suppress differences but inclusiveness.

But religion has been shown time and time again to be a major driving force in spreading intolerance.

Only today I read about the wife of the guy who killed his daughter in Iraq for talking to a British squadie was murdered by him and his family, in the name of religion. Louisiana school board was just passed a bill to try and sneak creationism back into the classroom. Does that sound tolerant? You have car dealerships telling atheists to "shut up", and movies like "Expelled" trying to equate atheism with Naziism.

So, do you still think that religion is benign?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]why do people insist that if you don't treat your religion with fanaticism you are not very serious about it?

I don't. However, your post basically ruled out quite a large part of the teachings of most religions.

Why are religious people viewed as mindless drones and atheists are the freethinkers of tomorrow?

Freethinkers of TOD ...[text shortened]... n more cases than you'd perhaps realise does cause the effects noted by me and others.[/b]

how many religious people have you encountered? how is believing in a god has any impact on the intelligence of a being?


you assume that religions cannot change. that adjusting is something reserved for "the freethinkers of today". that christians cannot cope in real life without prayer, or that jews must stone to death their adulteress wives. you take some fanatics who sadly have been so brainwashed by their society that indeed cannot function properly and call them icons representing religious people. maybe i should take mao and stalin and pol pot and make them icons of the atheists.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and again with the black and white. what annoys me most about atheists like yourself or dawkings is your conviction you cannot possibly be wrong and of course being oblivious about the fact you are just as religious as me. in your atheism.

superstring theory has people trying to prove it, but it is not yet proven. therefore by your standards it must be a ...[text shortened]... e saying that my philosophy is worse. and i am less than you for choosing a lesser philosophy.

and again with the black and white. what annoys me most about atheists like yourself or dawkings is your conviction you cannot possibly be wrong and of course being oblivious about the fact you are just as religious as me. in your atheism.

Do you actually READ anything posted by other people on here??

Dawkins (note the spelling) has freely admitted, many times, that he might be wrong. He is 99.9% sure he's right, but he acknowledges the possibility that he might be wrong.

Stop putting words in other people's mouths, especially when the documentary evidence exists to the contrary.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But religion has been shown time and time again to be a major driving force in spreading intolerance.

Only today I read about the wife of the guy who killed his daughter in Iraq for talking to a British squadie was murdered by him and his family, in the name of religion. Louisiana school board was just passed a bill to try and sneak creationism back ...[text shortened]... trying to equate atheism with Naziism.

So, do you still think that religion is benign?

funny as you don't mention any positive aspect of religion. or any negative aspect of atheism. i guess you think that religion is evil and atheism is okyday to be asking a question like "So, do you still think that religion is benign?"