Is being religious harmless?

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?

Hasty generalization fallacy. That some forms of religion have been intolerant, does not necessarily mean that religion is inherently intolerant. I could find you plenty of counter-examples for yours, but they would be also meaningless if I was trying to prove religion is inherently benign.

Which I'm not.

That said, I find that line of reasoning interesting for someone who wears the badge of intolerance proudly.

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?

The basis of harm is the different perceptions of good and bad. Once you realize that good and bad are merely perceptions we impose on ourselves and others, we realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Values that you hold as good to you are bad to others and vice versa. The only time we should be concerned with an opposition to our value set is when it will directly or indirectly interfer with our own pursuit of happiness, whatever that may be.

So, to the question posed, there are no "bad" sides to religion. Just different perceptions. Religion may be divisive, but is that bad? Maybe to you, maybe not to me. The responses on this thread, including this one, are nothing more than opinions. There are no right or wrong answers, but you can choose to consider them to form your own values for future experiences if you wish. And, whether you do or you don't. is neither good or bad. But, my question is, do you plan on taking these posts as opinions to form your own beliefs, or do you think you already have the answer to your question and looking for validation or more ammo to prove the point going forward?

In other words, are you asking with truly an open mind, or are you looking for justification to continue believing in what you're believing about religion and its negative aspects?

Originally posted by Palynka
Hasty generalization fallacy. That some forms of religion have been intolerant, does not necessarily mean that religion is inherently intolerant. I could find you plenty of counter-examples for yours, but they would be also meaningless if I was trying to prove religion is inherently benign.

Which I'm not.

That said, I find that line of reasoning interesting for someone who wears the badge of intolerance proudly.

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 still abortion clinics getting blown up, and places like Westborough Baptist church still exist. 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.

So, yeah, I'm pretty intolerant of that. Getting rid of religion would join more people together, since no one religion has anything like a worldwide majority of believers. Even Christianity, the largest, is smaller than the number of non-Christians. The best inclusion is all of us nt believing in Gods.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
religion, like any activity is only harmless with a lot of ifs.
if you don't base make actions hoping god will do a certain thing
if you don't force your children to obey the bible
if you don't teach genesis as a scientific book
if you don't take the bible as an accurate historical book
if you realize the moral guidelines of the bible are mostly obsol ...[text shortened]... so if you don't practice the harmful aspects of religion, that means religion is harmless.

You haven't read the Bible have you. The sections you have read if any, you only surfaced read. Many people like yourself have an opinion on the Bible, but have not read it for themselves. Have not researched the deeper mean. The Bible says, " raise your child in the word, and it will not depart them". If you don't take your child to church how will they know it. As far as your stoning comment. What did Jesus say. " Ye who is without sin, let them cast the first stone". No one any stones because all have sinned. Does that sound like Jesus is for it or against it. Genesis is not discribed as science. THe book of Genesis tells the origin of all things.

Now as far as not basing your action on god hoping that He will do certain things. That's called prayer. God says thou shall not kill yet people do. It's not the religion it's the man. Someone who does not know the Word, justtries to justify their actions to serve God. Man is the problem. The true key to having a safe religion, is a relationship with God, not a religion.

Originally posted by realeyez
It's not the religion it's the man....Man is the problem.

It would seem the only safe religion is one with no followers. I'm sure you'll help me to expediate this as quickly as possible.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Chinese are all one race: some of them are working are as slave labour.

1. The Chinese are not all one race - by any definition of the word. They certainly have a large number of ethnic groups. Yes, I know, that is not the only cause of exploitation in China, but it is a fact that certain ethnic groups are specifically exploited and the differences in ethnicity does cause major problems in China.
2. I don't know about slave labor. I guess it is a matter of degree. I often think I am being exploited because I work just as hard as people earning many times my salary.

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. The Chinese are not all one race - by any definition of the word. They certainly have a large number of ethnic groups. Yes, I know, that is not the only cause of exploitation in China, but it is a fact that certain ethnic groups are specifically exploited and the differences in ethnicity does cause major problems in China.
2. I don't know about slave ...[text shortened]... think I am being exploited because I work just as hard as people earning many times my salary.

Take the largest ethnic group in China and you'll find conflict within it.

To equalise society you'd need to do away with hierarchy, property, and various other factors. And that wouldn't work anyway.

Conflict appears to be part of the human condition. It might well be a necessary evil.

I don't think the thread title question is very useful. I offer a better one:

Under what conditions can religion be harmful?

I think we all know the answers to that.

We could also ask -- under what conditions can atheism be harmful?

Compare the answers to the two questions -- how different are they?

Child labour in China: http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889

Chinese slave labour: http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/07/2laogai.cfm

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Those questions were not asked of me.

What positive aspects are there to religion?

What negative aspects are there to atheism?

Alternatively: under what conditions can (a)theism [two for the price of one] be harmful / benign?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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.

ssssh we do not talk about the old testament 😀. God was having a midlife crisis and was vengeful, petty, cruel.

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.

we tried to get rid of alchohol too. or other things thought to be harmful.


instead of eliminating a potentially harmful thing why not modify it, change it so the good parts are emphasized and the harmful aspects are removed one by one.

Originally posted by realeyez
You haven't read the Bible have you. The sections you have read if any, you only surfaced read. Many people like yourself have an opinion on the Bible, but have not read it for themselves. Have not researched the deeper mean. The Bible says, " raise your child in the word, and it will not depart them". If you don't take your child to church how will they kn ...[text shortened]... em. The true key to having a safe religion, is a relationship with God, not a religion.

the WORD as you call it is a collection of superstition, insane scientific theories and obsolete moral guidelines.

most of the bible is written by jewish men who tried to justify genocide, ethnic cleansing and other cool aspects of their society by saying god wanted it that way.

jesus preaches mostly compassion, charity, social equality, yet then comes paul who claims he is under the influence of the holy spirit and reduces the woman to a slave status. how can one take the bible and label it as unquestionable when it is filled with such... stuff.

god gave us reason, the ability to change, to learn. if from time to time we discard some old knowledge for some better, new knowledge it is not the devil pushing us towards the eternal pit of doom. change after all was what jesus has brought after all. he too cam with new knowledge to replace those awful, scary laws from the old testament.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What positive aspects are there to religion?

What negative aspects are there to atheism?

Alternatively: under what conditions can (a)theism [two for the price of one] be harmful / benign?

Religion has some positive aspects. It can provide solace to people in times of crisis, and help people in inventing (rather than finding) meaning in their lives. It can foster community and it can certainly be used to further the development of mankind. (None of which means it is true, however)

Atheism can have negative aspects too. It is said by some to be a very negative philosophy, since there is no hope (of eternal life, for example). This doesn't make atheism false, and I think this argument largely hinges upon whether the use of false hope to make yourself feel better is a good thing or not. Atheists tend to be pretty much free thinkers, and often squabble. The atheistic community is often much less well organised than religion to promote their campaigns, since there is no central dogma, or high leader in atheism. We can see how dreadfully well organised organised religion can be when we look at, for example, the ID movement. Some people feel that atheism is a very uncaring philosophy. That could depress some, although it is liberating for others.

My philosophy is something along these lines;
You pays your money, you makes your choice. I have no qualms with that. But don't try sell crazy to anyone else.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Religion has some positive aspects. It can provide solace to people in times of crisis, and help people in inventing (rather than finding) meaning in their lives. It can foster community and it can certainly be used to further the development of mankind. (None of which means it is true, however)

Atheism can have negative aspects too. It is said ...[text shortened]... you makes your choice. I have no qualms with that. But don't try sell crazy to anyone else.

Can't disagree with anything here, except that atheism isn't a philosophy, merely a negative belief. You can be an atheist without having a philosophical bone in your body. Vide Dawkins.

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.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't think the thread title question is very useful. I offer a better one:

Under what conditions can religion be harmful?

But its my thread 🙂

The real question I am asking is whether it is possible to be religious and yet have no harmful effects on society?

To draw a parallel, though it only covers one aspect of my case, can you be black in a country which has a significant number of white people and not have the difference in your skin color cause harm?
Note that I am not blaming the person or the skin color here. It is most likely the bigotry of the white people to be to blame for any problems.
Note also that I am not even trying to prove that being religious has an overall harmful effect - the total effect might be positive.

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

Originally posted by twhitehead
But its my thread 🙂

The real question I am asking is whether it is possible to be religious and yet have no harmful effects on society?

To draw a parallel, though it only covers one aspect of my case, can you be black in a country which has a significant number of white people and not have the difference in your skin color cause harm?
Note that I ...[text shortened]... is that anyone who says that their religiosity is neutral ie has no effect whatsoever, is wrong.

mostly everything in this world has some effect or another, mostly more effects, some good some bad. i agree with bosse, you need to ask under what conditions religion is harmful and under what conditions it is beneficial.

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