Is being religious harmless?

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

Would you have a problem with one of your children marrying an atheist or a Muslim?

What would you say to one of your fellow church members wanting to marry outside the religion?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, which explains why eradicating religion from the USSR made people behave so much more reasonably.

I'm afraid I don't know my history in that part of the world. What did happen?

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. I've seen the 'no true communist' trotted out enough times to conclude that there's no material difference in term ...[text shortened]... /books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

I can understand what you are saying, but please understand my point.

The Pope is having people tortured to either (a) increase his personal power (if he knows his religion to be a sham), or (b) is carrying out the wishes of God (if he believes his religion to be true).

Stalin was killing people merely to consolidate his power.


The Pope realises full well that whoever controls this "magical conduit to God" (the church) weild vast power, and it's all based on a lie. The fact that the effect (people being tortured and killed) is the same, and both are abhorrent, does not mean that the motives for doing them are the same, and certainly the means of justifying it are very difference. I don't think Joe Stalin ever told anyone he had a divine right to do it.

The Guardian reviewer blythly misses this point, that the suicide bombers are trying to create a state, not to eradicate religion. The fact that they are atheistic is ancilliary to, not the sole point of, their crusade.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's you, scottish -- a caricature of a clergyman.

Fascinating. However, I fail to see how calling me a name has any impact on this discussion.

All I said, my original point, is that the bible clearly mandates the punishment for being, for example, homosexual, or talking back to your parents (death). The bible is supposed to be the infallible message of God.

What is caricatured about stating that? It's black and white, in the bible, go look if you want to.

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

Like school boards trying to force creationism into science classrooms?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The bible is supposed to be the infallible message of God.

Not for the majority of Christians. The only infallible message of God that Roman Catholics recognize is from the Pope. Hence Palynka pointing out that the Vatican supersedes the Bible when it comes to Catholic beliefs.

Before anyone jumps on me, I know I am stretching it a bit. 😉

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

Perhaps Bosse's clergyman metaphor was more literal than even he expected.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I don't think Joe Stalin ever told anyone he had a divine right to do it.

The Guardian reviewer blythly misses this point, that the suicide bombers are trying to create a state, not to eradicate religion. The fact that they are atheistic is ancilliary to, not the sole point of, their crusade.

He called it diamat, short for dialectical materialism.

"In 1931 shortly after his takeover, Stalin decided the issue of the debate between dialecticians and mechanists by publishing a decree which identified dialectical materialism as pertaining solely to Marxism-Leninism. He then codified it in Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938) by enumerating the "laws of dialectics", which are the grounds of particular disciplines and in particular of the science of history, and which guarantees their conformity to the "proletarian conception of the world". Thus, diamat was imposed on most Communist parties affiliated to the Third International. Diamat became the official philosophy of Stalinism and almost reached the status of state religion."

Here's the document itself: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

It's all very rational.

You're quite failing to see that the various abuses carried out in the name of, for the sake of, whatever are grounded in human psychology. At best you're attacking a symptom.

How do you propose to go about dismantling the Catholic church? Most Italians, for example, are quite happy to be Catholics, nominally or otherwise. It's part of their culture. Are you going to stand on a soapbox & preach Dawkins at them? Or will you say it's enough if only a few theists are deconverted -- as a preacher would rejoice at saving one soul amongst a crowd of sinners?

How is preaching atheism going to help with problems in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe?

Is there any actual point to your uncrusade at all, beyond annoying people? You're not adding to the sum of knowledge. You're not proposing any practical solutions to any real problems. You're merely attempting to make a virtue of your ignorance of and contempt for religious traditions.

If I were going to attack, say, the Anglican church on practical grounds like shielding child abusers, I'd pick quite different weapons.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are you going to stand on a soapbox & preach Dawkins at them?

Thats roughly what this thread was about, yes.

How is preaching atheism going to help with problems in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe?
No. But why should it have to? Do you do nothing unless it fixes one of those countries?
I think education would go a long way in all three countries - and I am more passionate about education than spreading atheism.

Originally posted by twhitehead

[b]How is preaching atheism going to help with problems in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe?
No. But why should it have to? Do you do nothing unless it fixes one of those countries?
I think education would go a long way in all three countries - and I am more passionate about education than spreading atheism.[/b]

That comment stems from the impression that certain people have seized on religion as the source of all evil -- a viewpoint I encounter frequently, with the same insights derived from Pop History -- "it's incontestable that organised religion is responsible for more atrocities than any other agency" (paraphrase of a comment by someone I was talking to yesterday, a South African journalist). No, vice is the source of all evil.

I have no problem with atheists talking about their (non) belief, but I deplore the cheap tactics resorted to. I used them myself in the past and was ashamed to be shown that they are frankly ignoble.

I find education incompatible with eliminating religion, just as forcing education to conform with religion is self-defeating.

The strangest thing about this thread is that you have three atheists and one uh whatever I am shouting the odds ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I find education incompatible with eliminating religion, just as forcing education to conform with religion is self-defeating.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that education actually encourages religion?
I certainly didn't mean to say in my post that education was a way to combat religion (even though I do think it is).
I am passionate about education because I think that many of the worlds ills - especially where I come from - can be somewhat lessened through education. People in first world countries are dramatically better of than those in third world countries largely because of education. I am of the firm belief that if the first President of Zambia had put everything possible into education and ensured that every single Zambian entering school after that date had reached university level, then Zambia would be a far far far better country today. I think it would be worth doing the same now. I would be willing to pay double the taxes etc to achieve that goal. I think that not enough people think that far ahead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that education actually encourages religion?

No, merely that if I were an educator, pushing my (non) beliefs on others wouldn't be part of my plan. If people want folk metaphysics, let them have it. If people use folk metaphysics to perpetrate fraud, let them be prosecuted. But bear in mind that convincing people to part with their cash in exchange for a ticket to heaven is not very different from persuading them that drinking a diet formula is the way to shed their excess flesh.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

sure it can, unless i put a lot of ifs in place. (bot in carrying a gun and in carrying a religion)

i might put the safety one, or remove the bullets, or be extra careful. and so the harmful aspects of carrying a gun are almost removed leaving only the remote possibility of something bad happening and the beneficial aspects. all activities have a harmful aspect, if we renounce them without trying to diminish those aspects we would never get out of the house

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.
i do admit it, that is why i am instating all those ifs. the problem is that some people only wish to discuss religion without the ifs: the stiff, mindnumbing, fundamental, self blowing in god's name kind of religion. (the bad kind of religion)

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Fascinating. However, I fail to see how calling me a name has any impact on this discussion.

All I said, my original point, is that the bible clearly mandates the punishment for being, for example, homosexual, or talking back to your parents (death). The bible is supposed to be the infallible message of God.

What is caricatured about stating that? It's black and white, in the bible, go look if you want to.

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that sola scriptura, or Biblical literalism, is adhered to by a minority of Christians -- most of them in the USA. The Catholic, Greek Orthodox, & Coptic churches, among others, not to mention the very flexible Jewish tradition, sensibly reserve the right to interpret their material in non literal ways. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this point, if you can comprehend it, depresses the hell out of me.

I'll let you figure out the caricatural aspect of your stance for yourself. Your post that I am replying to now is an example of it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that sola scriptura, or Biblical literalism, is adhered to by a minority of Christians -- most of them in the USA. The Catholic, Greek Orthodox, & Coptic churches, among others, not to mention the very flexible Jewish tradition, sensibly reserve the right to interpret their material in no ...[text shortened]... l aspect of your stance for yourself. Your post that I am replying to now is an example of it.

Some people have a hard time acknowledging facts if they destroy their preconceptions.