Religion is Dangerous

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are missing the whole argument. The issue is not whether or not the Bible or the Quran is dangerous.
Your example of Alice in wonderland showed quite clearly that if you start a religion based on it, then the religion will be dangerous.
So yes, it is not the work itself that is dangerous but the actions people take based on the works, and that is ex ...[text shortened]... g it.
you are in fact saying:
"Take up/create/join a religion and you become dangerous."[/b]

you don't have to mystify something for it to become dangerous. following anything blindly without thinking for yourself is dangerous. mein kampf is dangerous and it is not a religion book.

i never read mein kampf, but i am sure that even in that book there might be something decent. i am sure hitler doesn't repeat "kill the jews" over and over again. if you approach it with an open mind. if you approach it as a drone, you might start thinking hitler was a great man and the jews are evil or in the case of alice that cheshire cats always smile and can vanish at will.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
we all are influenced by outside factors in some way. but ultimately we make a decision, not the outside factors. in the end it is us who made the good or wrong decision and it doesn't matter what the outside factors were, we were or not able to make the correct decision.

someone who gave money to fallwell has nobody to blame but himself. not even fallwe ...[text shortened]... ard on a ladder, you blame the worker that put the ladder there?does your head hurt any less?

You imply that blame for something (and that is not the only issue here but lets run with this for a moment) can be attributed in only one place. If someone walking down the street were to walk under a ladder as the person working on it dropped a hammer, then you could argue that the person walking down the street was to blame for the accident as they should have been paying more attention and gone around the ladder and not under it, or you could blame the person up the ladder for not keeping hold of his tools, or the foreman/employer could be blamed for not ensuring that there was adequate safety/signs/cones/whatever on site... In truth, they all take some blame, to lesser and greater extents.

In the context of our religion debate, If you are born into and raised your entire life, by a family/community/church that teaches you certain beliefs and ways of thought and you then go out into the world and act on these believes/truths/morals you have been taught, does not some blame/responsibility for those actions rest with the people who taught them to you. This is why incitement to murder for example is a crime as well as actually committing a crime, and in fact if the person who commits the crime is considered to be of vulnerable and /or of significantly lower intelligence than the person who incited/told them to do it, then the person inciting the crime can get a much harsher punishment than the person who did it.

You also seem to be saying that only people who are inherently evil/bad will do evil/wrong things in the name of religion (from the perspective of an outsider, I am assuming here that the people within the religion would agree with the actions otherwise we are talking about people just randomly doing bad things). This isn't true, perfectly nice/honest/friendly people can do terrible things if properly motivated/indoctrinated/scared...ect. either that or that the people running the religions (priests/imams/ect) have to be inherently bad/evil and that they simply take everyone else with them, I don't think this is true, but my argument would then be that for this to occur the organised religion in question must have been poorly set-up/conceived to allow this to happen, in the same way that dictatorships are set up to favour megalomaniacs, a religion is dangerous if it allows dangerous people to wield power.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are missing the whole argument. The issue is not whether or not the Bible or the Quran is dangerous.
Your example of Alice in wonderland showed quite clearly that if you start a religion based on it, then the religion will be dangerous.
So yes, it is not the work itself that is dangerous but the actions people take based on the works, and that is ex ...[text shortened]... g it.
you are in fact saying:
"Take up/create/join a religion and you become dangerous."[/b]

I know plenty of practising Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (well,
only a few Buddhists to be honest) and even a few Zoroastrians and
none of them are dangerous to themselves or others. They take their
religious believes seriously, but not so much that they feel the need to
impose it on others, and not so much that their anger eats them when I
speak my (sometimes provocative) views on religion. In fact, they've
shown considerable patience and kindness considering how incredibly
annoying and flat out rude I can be, so no... religion is not dangerous
in itself.

It's just that some people choose to go haywire with it.

In fact, most every religion is at the core about improving yourself and
learning to coexist better with the people around you. It doesn't matter
to a real Christian for instance if others don't believe and embrace
Christ. It's their duty to spread their version of the word of God, but not
at any cost. Only crazy people would impose their believes on others at
any cost. Sane people try to sell their believes and accept it if not
everyone agrees with them, religious or not.

Nationalists are also often dangerous, albeit not necessarily religious.
They just take this whole cultural border thing way too seriously. Add to
that a tendency to be aggressive and you've got yourself the perfect
recipe for a loony.

Right. There it is! Being to serious about something and inclined to
aggressive behaviour and you've got the ingredients. Such a person can
take any concept and use it as an excuse to act out.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You imply that blame for something (and that is not the only issue here but lets run with this for a moment) can be attributed in only one place. If someone walking down the street were to walk under a ladder as the person working on it dropped a hammer, then you could argue that the person walking down the street was to blame for the accident as they sh ...[text shortened]... then the person inciting the crime can get a much harsher punishment than the person who did it.

if someone decides to walk under ladders he is assuming the possibility that he would be whacked over the head with something dropped and he is accepting the risk. you should have asked who is to blame if someone is hit by a car when crossing at a red light, the driver or the person who walked when there is a red light?

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=The_death_of_Common_Sense&threadid=90193
read this thread. i think it is among the best posts i have ever read on RHP forums.

but in short, who is to blame when a woman spills hot coffee in her lap. is it the starbucks girl who made a (surprise) hot cup of coffee or the idiot broad who after spilling hot coffee on herself had the nerve to sue for what was her fault. this is an even more clear example.

I have the same opinion of religion's danger as I do of wars: if it's a common noun you are up against, it can't hurt you. Just like wars on poverty, drugs, terror--religion, faith-based iniatives and creationism can't hurt me one whit. It's when people (with names = proper nouns) get behind movements that it CAN become dangerous.

heh' I've read that chestnut before :-)
Anyway, the specific example (person walking under ladder) may or may not have been a good one, but you're smart enough to get the point I was trying to make.
And you didn't say anything about whether if someone is exposed for all their formulative years, to religious doctrine, then are the people who indoctrinated them at least partially responsible for this persons actions.
Or more generally, If you extol the virtues of a particular moral code/lifestyle/whatever then do you not take some responsibility for those who follow your words?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I have the same opinion of religion's danger as I do of wars: if it's a common noun you are up against, it can't hurt you. Just like wars on poverty, drugs, terror--religion, faith-based iniatives and creationism can't hurt me one whit. It's when people (with names = proper nouns) get behind movements that it CAN become dangerous.

If you take religion to be the blind faith belief in a deity/s/world view/moral code beyond any reasoned argument or debate, then it can be dangerous, especially if the word of god (or equivalent) needs, gets, or has been, interpreted by the religious hierarchy (other people), as in most organised religions.

Also 'Wars on terror/drugs/ect' can be very dangerous, just usually not to the people they're supposed to be.

Originally posted by googlefudge


Also 'Wars on terror/drugs/ect' can be very dangerous, just usually not to the people they're supposed to be.[/b]

good point, sir

Is 667joe Christopher Hitchens' alter ego?

Originally posted by scherzo
Is 667joe Christopher Hitchens' alter ego?

I doubt it--no more "ego" could possibly fit into Hitchens body than he aalready has. He makes Shatner look humble.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I doubt it--no more "ego" could possibly fit into Hitchens body than he aalready has. He makes Shatner look humble.

😀

He's cool on religion and Zionism, but I can't stand his other politics or his complete assertion that every resisting view is utterly and completely wrong.

Originally posted by scherzo
Is 667joe Christopher Hitchens' alter ego?

I will take that as a compliment!

Originally posted by 667joe
I will take that as a compliment!

of course you would. a man who would bash mother teresa. no really he did bash her it was in another thread.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course you would. a man who would bash mother teresa. no really he did bash her it was in another thread.

Mother Teresa could have relieved a lot more suffering if she had done more to fight poverty and less to perpetuate it.