Is being religious harmless?

Originally posted by twhitehead

What I am arguing is that anyone who says that their religiosity is neutral ie has no effect whatsoever, is wrong.

But you might as well ask whether existence itself can possibly be neutral. Clearly not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Religion claims tolerance, yet if you actually look at their doctrine, all major religions have capital punishment, normally death, prescribed for anyone who is different. Atheists, heretics, homosexuals, you name it, it's Christian standard punishment is weird barbarism. Granted, nowadays they don't often exercise those punishments, but there are sti ...[text shortened]... ler than the number of non-Christians. The best inclusion is all of us nt believing in Gods.

Religion claims tolerance, yet if you actually look at their doctrine, all major religions have capital punishment, normally death, prescribed for
anyone who is different.

Again, you're talking based on what you think Christianity and Catholicism is and not on what it really is. The Vatican, for example, has an encyclical against the death penalty.

Atheists, heretics, homosexuals, you name it, it's Christian standard punishment is weird barbarism.
What is this barbaric standard punishment that you think Christianity applies to those 3 groups?

Yet mainstream Christianity fairs little better - women's rights have been subjugated for 2000 years by Christianity, and children are still being told they are evil sinners and promised hellfire.
Please. Get a grip of yourself. Around 1/3 of mankind is reported to be Christian. You keep basing your views on a minority of fanatics and claim it is mainstream somehow. It isn't.

Regarding the blowing up of abortion clinics, it says little about Christianity actually. Does green terrorism say anything about ecological concerns? Clearly not.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Religion claims tolerance, yet if you actually look at their doctrine, all major religions have capital punishment, normally death, prescribed for
anyone who is different.

Again, you're talking based on what you think Christianity and Catholicism is and not on what it really is. The Vatican, for example, has an encyclical against t ...[text shortened]... stianity actually. Does green terrorism say anything about ecological concerns? Clearly not.[/b]

It seems the Catholic church has departed from the word of God, since it is God in the OT that demands these punishments.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But you didn't address what most interests me: how theism and atheism alike, once adopted as official state ideology, can be complicit in atrocity.

I agree that atheism is a lack of belief rather than a philosophy per se, yet I had some problems with finding the right term to describe atheism, since in my opinion it is a non-belief rather than a belief (i.e. a non-belief in the existence of God, rather than a belief in the non-existence of God, i.e. weak vs. strong atheism). All very confusing.

Anyhow, I don't believe that atheism can be used to justify an attrocity, at least not in the same way that religion can. For sure, it is logically possible that an atheistic individual could go after destroying all theists, yet he isn't doing for atheism. Where we do see people like Joe Stalin, we have to realise that these are megalomaniacs first, and atheists somewhere down the line after that. The consolidation of power is central to them, and I'm sure they would have no problem in consolidating that power using the same means were they a theist.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It seems the Catholic church has departed from the word of God, since it is God in the OT that demands these punishments.

So now you're saying that you, and not the Vatican, defines what Catholics should believe in? Give me a break.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i could ask: "is carrying a gun harmful?" to which nobody could answer no. you have to discuss the implications.

But you appear to be saying:"I derive some benefit from religion and cause no harm whatsoever".
equivalent to:
"I don't know whether I might need a gun, so I'll carry one anyway, after all what harm can it do?".

I am perfectly open to discussing implications, but first you need to admit that carrying a gun can be harmful and should not be taken lightly.

Originally posted by Palynka
So now you're saying that you, and not the Vatican, defines what Catholics should believe in? Give me a break.

I wasn't aware that the Vatican dictated belief. I always thought that it was up to the people and that they only got guidance from the institution. It certainly seemed that way in the Anglican Church.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I frequently meet people who admit to being slightly or mostly agnostic or even outright atheist but who still go to Church for various reasons (social, therapeutic etc).
In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins raises a number of reasons why religion - even moderate or social religion is not necessarily a good thing.

I would like a discussion about the v ...[text shortened]... big an issue do people think that is, and what other problems are there with moderate religion?

"I think one of the major ones is division."

Sorry to jump in here so late in the discussion.(Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the time constraints I have.)

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that at one time it was considered healthy that in America we could enjoy the freedom of our diversity while recognising our common bond. But unfortunately it seems that today people have forgotten how to respect one another's right to believe and live they way one wants to. i.e. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

While I may disagree with another's belief system I have no right to infringe on their right to go about their own business as long as they are not breaking any laws. I think part of the problem is that some people think they are somehow better and smarter than the rest of us and seek to control every aspect of our lives. I think this is amply illustrated by the liberal democratic notion of increasing the size of government and imposing regulations on the free market, and increases in taxes for government programs.

I think divisiveness comes about in direct relation to the penchant of some to control others lives.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't aware that the Vatican dictated belief. I always thought that it was up to the people and that they only got guidance from the institution. It certainly seemed that way in the Anglican Church.

It certainly is more representative of Catholic belief than scottishinnz beliefs on what Catholic belief should be.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Anyhow, I don't believe that atheism can be used to justify an attrocity, at least not in the same way that religion can. For sure, it is logically possible that an atheistic individual could go after destroying all theists, yet he isn't doing for atheism.

Yes, because nobody acts in not-the-name-of-something -- very convenient for atheists who blithely pin the blame for atrocities on the existence of religion, when the responsibility in fact lies with individuals abusing positions of power. I've seen the 'no true communist' trotted out enough times to conclude that there's no material difference in terms of (a)theism between a Pope authorising an inquisition or Stalin blotting out the kulaks. In both cases, a leader executed a command contrary to the spirit of the institution that he led. The Pope in question actually faced vocal opposition from within the church (Bernard de Clairvaux argued most eloquently that it was un-Christian to torture heretics) but he had the power to ignore dissent.

"In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens notes that, long before Hizbullah and al-Qaida, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka pioneered what he rightly calls "the disgusting tactic of suicide murder". He omits to mention that the Tigers are Marxist-Leninists who, while recruiting mainly from the island's Hindu population, reject religion in all its varieties. Tiger suicide bombers do not go to certain death in the belief that they will be rewarded in any postmortem paradise. Nor did the suicide bombers who drove American and French forces out of Lebanon in the 80s, most of whom belonged to organisations of the left such as the Lebanese communist party. These secular terrorists believed they were expediting a historical process from which will come a world better than any that has ever existed. It is a view of things more remote from human realities, and more reliably lethal in its consequences, than most religious myths."
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

Originally posted by Palynka
It certainly is more representative of Catholic belief than scottishinnz beliefs on what Catholic belief should be.

I am not surprised. The Anglicans are more interested in tradition than what God says too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, because nobody acts in not-the-name-of-something -- very convenient for atheists who blithely pin the blame for atrocities on the existence of religion, when the responsibility in fact lies with individuals abusing positions of power.

In my opinion, a leader who uses religion as an excuse to commit an atrocity, often does so for non-religious reasons. However, the fact that he uses the 'excuse' shows that he is playing on a well known weakness of religious people to support fellow members of their religion in an irrational manner, especially when those fellow members invoke their religion as an excuse. I find that many religious people desperately want any support for their religion that they can find, and will lie, cheat and steal for it, and yes even support people whose actions they don't agree with. A religious person would usually rather have a terrible president who is very religious than a good president who is atheist or of a different religion.

For all this I blame the psychology that surrounds religious practice more than the religion as such, but removing the religion does remove the problem.

We see a similar effect with patriotism etc.

Originally posted by Palynka
So now you're saying that you, and not the Vatican, defines what Catholics should believe in? Give me a break.

Actually, I'm saying that their imaginary God should.

Originally posted by twhitehead

For all this I blame the psychology that surrounds religious practice more than the religion as such, but removing the religion does remove the problem.

Yes, which explains why eradicating religion from the USSR made people behave so much more reasonably.

To me it comes down to herd mentality. Removing religion doesn't solve any problems; it just creates a new environment for the herd to disport itself. The psychological fundamentals don't change. Look at Stalin's personality cult.

What you really have to do is systematically eliminate the herd. This was one of L. Ron Hubbard's cherished views. And we've got the technology! We can do it!

Treating religion as a problem requiring removal does not meet with my approval.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, I'm saying that their imaginary God should.

"Among contemporary anti-religious polemicists, only the French writer Michel Onfray has taken Nietzsche as his point of departure. In some ways, Onfray's In Defence of Atheism is superior to anything English-speaking writers have published on the subject. Refreshingly, Onfray recognises that evangelical atheism is an unwitting imitation of traditional religion: "Many militants of the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy."

That's you, scottish -- a caricature of a clergyman.