Is being religious harmless?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
funny as you don't mention any positive aspect of religion. or any negative aspect of atheism.

Those questions were not asked of me.

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.

I think scottishinnz already defended Dawkins on that point. I too do not think that I cannot possibly be wrong. But I am very close to certain. Why do you find it so annoying? You are just as certain about a great many things. Should we all be annoyed with you? I am not religious in my atheism at all. My faith is not blind.

and likewise decent theists will not bet on a horse because they prayed to god for that horse to win.
A bad analogy and you know it. Most theists I know claim that they are betting on their horse to win ie they are investing a lot in their belief that God exists and that he is reasonably close to their understanding of him. But then you seem to be more agnostic than theist. I am just surprised you think that theists with more faith than you are indecent.

if you say your philosphy is better then you are saying that my philosophy is worse.
Quite true. But then you must surely feel the same way about me, and Muslims, and every Christian denomination than your own.

and i am less than you for choosing a lesser philosophy.
How do you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Do you think I am less than you?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[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.

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

Dawkins (note the spelling) has freely ...[text shortened]... rds in other people's mouths, especially when the documentary evidence exists to the contrary.[/b]

just because he admitted he might be wrong doesn't change the fact he thinks religious people, all religious people, are idiots or to quote him "delusional". yes, i might be wrong, i haven't read the entirety of his work, so didn't find a quote where is says he might be wrong. what i did read, or better said what i was able to endure to read didn't contain a shred of doubt. doubt that evolutionism is not a complete and unquestionable theory, or that maybe there is a god.
i haven't put words in peoples mouths. just as you found a quote in which he admits he might be wrong(i would like to see that quote by the way) i to found that he considers religious people delusional or that believing in a creator is mind-shrinking.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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 ...[text shortened]... us people. maybe i should take mao and stalin and pol pot and make them icons of the atheists.

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

Many, in answer to your first question.
Believing in God has no per se effect on ones intelligence. However, studies exist which show that religion is typically the opiate of those of more modest cognitive ability.
I believe we should all logically question our beliefs, and go for the most logical argument. The more I learn, the more sure I am that God is not required.

maybe i should take mao and stalin and pol pot and make them icons of the atheists.

This tired old attack has been shot down so many times before it's just boring now. It certainly doesn't matter what religion, if any, a megalomanic is, they are going to kill people. But they DO NOT kill in the name of atheism. Show me a single quote where any of those guys said they were killing for no God. Yet, I can provide hundreds of quotes of people committing atrocities for their God.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
funny as you don't mention any positive aspect of religion. or any negative aspect of atheism.

You are welcome to come up with a few of those. Just start your own thread, I am sure you will get plenty of people helping you, even I would.
My point is not that religion is all bad, my point is that religion has good and bad sides to it and there is no such thing as neutral. In addition, I personally think that the bad outweighs the good.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
just because he admitted he might be wrong doesn't change the fact he thinks religious people, all religious people, are idiots or to quote him "delusional". yes, i might be wrong, i haven't read the entirety of his work, so didn't find a quote where is says he might be wrong. what i did read, or better said what i was able to endure to read didn't contain e considers religious people delusional or that believing in a creator is mind-shrinking.

For the second time, deluded DOES NOT EQUAL stupid.

These people have been tricked, but that doesn't make them stupid.

I do not for a second believe that Dawkins said that believing in God makes you stupid, but I do believe it can reduce the desire for knowledge, since it actively promotes mental obedience to the party line.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think scottishinnz already defended Dawkins on that point. I too do not think that I cannot possibly be wrong. But I am very close to certain. Why do you find it so annoying? You are just as certain about a great many things. Should we all be annoyed with you? I am not religious in my atheism at all. My faith is not blind.

[b]and likewise decent thei ...[text shortened]... philosophy.
How do you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Do you think I am less than you?[/b]

i am not certain god exists. i believe in his existence because it is more comforting and because being wrong in this case has absolutely no impact on my life. there will be no god of the atheists after i die to send me to atheist hell because i believed in something that didn't exist after all.

Most theists I know claim that they are betting on their horse to win ie they are investing a lot in their belief that God exists and that he is reasonably close to their understanding of him. But then you seem to be more agnostic than theist. I am just surprised you think that theists with more faith than you are indecent.

those are bad theists. a theists understands better than to live their life hoping for divine interventions. its like playing russian roulette without knowing where the bullet is. is illogical. as long as religion does not interfere in a harmful way in my life, it is entirely beneficial

Quite true. But then you must surely feel the same way about me, and Muslims, and every Christian denomination than your own.

no i don't. i thought i was clear a while ago. and i did say this in another thread. i believe that each person chooses the religion best suited for him/her, including atheists. if you're a budhist monk, or an atheist pediatrician you are still a good person. and if judgment will happen, you will be trialled according to the life you lived, not the name you gave your god.


the last was answered above

Originally posted by scottishinnz

I do not for a second believe that Dawkins said that believing in God makes you stupid, but I do believe it can reduce the desire for knowledge, since it actively promotes mental obedience to the party line.

Except in the case of such as Newton & Kepler.

Dull people are going to be dull whether they believe in God or not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
For the second time, deluded DOES NOT EQUAL stupid.

These people have been tricked, but that doesn't make them stupid.

I do not for a second believe that Dawkins said that believing in God makes you stupid, but I do believe it can reduce the desire for knowledge, since it actively promotes mental obedience to the party line.

common misconception that religious people are sheep incapable of independent thought.

sure, if they were brainwashed into fanaticals, but then again atheists can be zombified too. they too can follow a politician or buying a product without forming their own opinion.

"it can reduce the desire for knowledge" this is true. however religion hasn't reduced my thirst for knowledge. it hasn't increased it either. and i don't believe being an atheist would have encouraged me to seek more knowledge or less. this statement is the same as saying mcdonalds food can cause heart attacks. (well it can but only if you eat it in huge quantities, get this analogy?)

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

If the preacher is bigoted and influential, yes, otherwise probably no, a bigot might even repent of his sinful ways. Too hypothetical.

Second point: I doubt it, every country contains exploiters and exploited. Chinese are all one race: some of them are working are as slave labour.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Except in the case of such as Newton & Kepler.

Dull people are going to be dull whether they believe in God or not.

But religion can also make potentially interesting people dull, or attempt to suppress the truth.

How many children now could grow up to find a cure for cancer, yet have been indoctrinate by the church to believe science is evil??

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]how many religious people have you encountered? how is believing in a god has any impact on the intelligence of a being?

Many, in answer to your first question.
Believing in God has no per se effect on ones intelligence. However, studies exist which show that religion is typically the opiate of those of more modest cognitive ability. ...[text shortened]... no God. Yet, I can provide hundreds of quotes of people committing atrocities for their God.[/b]

we are making progress. so being atheist has no relevance on the fact that stalin was a genocidal maniac. so why should being religious have relevance on a terrorist blowing himself up. the fact he claims he is doing it for Allah doesn't mean islam is responsible rather the one who used islam as a tool to make another person do his will. if islam didn't exist, the palestinians would probably use patriotism to motivate suicide bombers. or something else.

religion is not responsible for maniacs just as rammstein or marylin manson arent responsible for the columbine shootings

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
we are making progress. so being atheist has no relevance on the fact that stalin was a genocidal maniac. so why should being religious have relevance on a terrorist blowing himself up. the fact he claims he is doing it for Allah doesn't mean islam is responsible rather the one who used islam as a tool to make another person do his will. if islam didn't exi ...[text shortened]... for maniacs just as rammstein or marylin manson arent responsible for the columbine shootings

Agree.

A bomb is never religious. Some people use religion as a reason to throw bombs and exercise terrorism.

Usama bin Ladin used religion as a reason to exersice his terror, Bush used religion to invade Aphganistan and Iraq, Knesset use religion as a reason to occupy the Palestinian territory. In every case they think they have their respective god (which is b.t.w. the same god) as a reason to conduct terror. But they don't.

(If god existed, he would punish them for using his name for their bloodthirst. He doesn't, which per se is a proof of his non-existence. But this is off topic.)

Jewish terrorists, Christian terrorists, Muslim terrorists is not evil in themselves, they just haven't understood the message of love in their religions.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Agree.

A bomb is never religious. Some people use religion as a reason to throw bombs and exercise terrorism.

Usama bin Ladin used religion as a reason to exersice his terror, Bush used religion to invade Aphganistan and Iraq, Knesset use religion as a reason to occupy the Palestinian territory. In every case they think they have their respective go ...[text shortened]... not evil in themselves, they just haven't understood the message of love in their religions.

i view god as simply a spectator. he might cheer for some side at one time or he simply doesn't care. however why would he involve himself in world affairs. we are responsible for what we do and we must solve our own problems, not expect god to solve them for us.


we do not have an angel and a devil on our shoulders.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i view god as simply a spectator. he might cheer for some side at one time or he simply doesn't care. however why would he involve himself in world affairs. we are responsible for what we do and we must solve our own problems, not expect god to solve them for us.


we do not have an angel and a devil on our shoulders.

Well, god is famous for his interference and intolerance in the old testament times. The great flooding, the Sodom/Gomorra thing, and numerous wars where the gods side won.
Perhaps god is behaving better nowadays, staying out of worldly matters.