Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

[Daxx]

It's not consistent to claim that a person doing an evil act is just a crazy person, whilst simultaneously attributing good acts to religion and not just the acts of a good person.

Crazy wasn't meant to be taken literally. And anyone he kills without cause in the name of God is wrong.

But it's still inconsistent to attribute bad things to the person and good things to the religion. You can have it one way or the other, but not both.

Also, look up the the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Kuu]

But it's still inconsistent to attribute bad things to the person and good things to the religion. You can have it one way or the other, but not both.

Also, look up the the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It is equally fallacized (is that a word?) to blame the whole for the part.

Look up the fallacy of composition. By the way, that fallacy is the whole reason why this topic is irrelevant.

[Daxx]

It is equally fallacized (is that a word?) to blame the whole for the part.

Look up the fallacy of composition. By the way, that fallacy is the whole reason why this topic is irrelevant.

The word you're looking for is "fallacious".

You are correct to say that it's not always appropriate to associate the actions of a member of a group with a group as a whole, which is why I was pushing for the acknowledgement that you can't appropriate good acts by a person on the behalf of religion as a whole.

The real criticism of religion's danger lies not with the crimes that have been committed in its name, but in its strength as a tool for social control. Any system which allows people to exploit others and excuse away deplorable acts is in some small measure a problem if people are allowed to abuse it unchecked (most systems of representative governance and organised religion are the two major examples, each of which has benefits to counterbalance the problems that they cause).

[Kuu]

The word you're looking for is "fallacious".

Thank you.

The real criticism of religion's danger lies not with the crimes that have been committed in its name, but in its strength as a tool for social control. Any system which allows people to exploit others and excuse away deplorable acts is in some small measure a problem if people are allowed to abuse it unchecked (most systems of representative governance and organised religion are the two major examples, each of which has benefits to counterbalance the problems that they cause).

Please expand upon this. What specifically and plainly does religion do that is dangerous?

[long answer]

Let me copy a few techniques from other posts to illustrate my point.

1st let me define "Belief"


•Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
•

2nd let me define "Religion" of any kind:


•Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.
•

3rd and finally what do I mean by "dangerous"? (implying the point that belief in religion is dangerous)


•Dangerous describes something that encompasses danger.

... danger being synonymous to the "threat" of adverse events

•

...

Why is non-belief in a religion so terrible and detrimental in the eyes of those who do believe?

I cannot pick "one" religion, out of many, just to practice and be damned if I'm wrong. Then afterwards look with detrimental throughts to "otehrs" who do not believe.

This system doesn't make sense.

I prefer being neutral in all of this.
believe what you will, or not.

Thank you for the definitions. Now what exactly does religion do that is dangerous?

[Kuu]

Let me be very clear. Religion is a form of open-minded thinking.

That I can agree with.

What makes religion is so dangerous is that, it stops critical thinking.

And far more dangerous by instilling fear and paralysis to those who would be far more liberated in thinking, and living
...

Proof? I am religious and I believe I can think critically (a definition on what you mean by critically might be helpful too).

I'm also not sure what you mean by instilling fear. I'm not particularly afraid and I'm religious.

[Kuu]

I'm speaking form a purely broad sense, of religion in general; across countries, across religions.

The proof is not simply, one person with the opposite idea, nor does 10, or 100, nor a majority of the planet. What I say is that it does this systematically in a broad and general sense, when a religion is practiced.

I see what you mean... but can you at least give hypothetical examples of plausible ways that religion stops critical thinking, and again, a definition of critical thinking?

I'd like to know what religion you practice before I continue my position (neutral) stance here. (explaining the instilling fear in a general and systematic sense).

I'm not sure why you'd need to know, but I am a Christ follower. If you're worried about offending me: don't be. If you want to specifically address why my religion instills fear: then I don't see why a specific religion is required to show that religion in general instills fear. But please: continue.

[Daxx]

The real criticism of religion's danger lies not with the crimes that have been committed in its name, but in its strength as a tool for social control. Any system which allows people to exploit others and excuse away deplorable acts is in some small measure a problem if people are allowed to abuse it unchecked (most systems of representative governance and organised religion are the two major examples, each of which has benefits to counterbalance the problems that they cause).

Please expand upon this. What specifically and plainly does religion do that is dangerous?

The biggest problem with this discussion is that no-one has defined their terms properly. "religion is dangerous" is an extremely vague and non-specific statement, as we haven't defined "religion" or "dangerous" (or even "is"). Still, it's worth answering anyway.

Religious beliefs by themselves do little - they are just ideas, not things. One might be able to argue that they can motivate or excuse actions, but ideologues are rare outside of radicalised social groups.

Organised religion, meaning the orthodox practices and methods of thinking of globe-spanning organisations with hierarchies, resources and other forms of social dominance mechanisms, are things and hence can be used dangerously (and may even act dangerously without conscious effort on anyone's part).

They are dangerous in the same way that a gun is dangerous. That is, they are a tool which can be used responsibly or irresponsibly; the responsibility for the actions committed is not with the religious meme or the gun as such, but on the people within the religion or the person wielding the gun.

That said it is becoming more and more difficult to seperate organisations from their constituent members. This is a matter of some debate in business academia. And we (that is, those in most civilised nations) also ban guns for a reason - the "benefits" that come from owning a gun are nebulous and are far outweighed by the potential problems. So realistically the answer is a complicated one and full of nuance.

[Kuu]

can be used dangerously

Can you think of something that can't be used dangerously? Ideas are generally just dangerous things.

They are dangerous in the same way that a gun is dangerous. That is, they are a tool which can be used responsibly or irresponsibly; the responsibility for the actions committed is not with the religious meme or the gun as such, but on the people within the religion or the person wielding the gun.

I'll agree to that. But again: can't everything (or nearly everything) be used dangerously? And who's to determine who is responsible enough to use religion?

And we (that is, those in most civilised nations) also ban guns for a reason - the "benefits" that come from owning a gun are nebulous and are far outweighed by the potential problems.

Now that's a whole different discussion.

[Kuu]

So what you mean by critical thinking if I understand you correctly is basically thinking for yourself and questioningly? And religion hinders critical thinking by using fear tactics and discouraging questioning? I suppose I agree, though I am slightly hesitant to for fear of being stabbed in the back with it later.

I don't think though that religion (or at least Christianity) needs to be this way or that it should, but unfortunately the church is in a sort of anti-intellectual phase at the moment.

[killybob]

essentially there is not a thing wrong with faith in a supreme being (lest that being be evil). all the sacred texts of the original religions clearly are in abhorrence towards the evil that has been associated with it. indeed they encourage good will and equality. no, it is the corruption of the human mind and the natural desire to follow the most selfish route that is the danger here. over the years religion has been the only beacon of light through the centuries. it is only the bias of those who oppose or fear the very concept of religion and faith that have so persecuted the way of life that has actually kept us going through our existence. it is for individuals to decide what they believe but for the masses it falls to decide what shall befall the human race and what they shall trust in.

[Daxx]

can be used dangerously

Can you think of something that can't be used dangerously? Ideas are generally just dangerous things.

This is true, which is why I was arguing mostly about Organised Religion's (forgive the generalisation) propensity to have much larger and more powerful social dominance mechanisms than most other organisations, in combination with a memeplex which is often considered repressive and can be argued to glorify and promote ignorance; the only comparable organisations with similar social control are governments (which are ostensibly social welfare maximisers and tend to have inherent checks and balances) and the largest corporations (which have more legal restrictions and a less developed memeplex).

When social institutions use ideology and claims of authority to repress, you have to take a critical look at everything involved.

essentially there is not a thing wrong with faith in a supreme being (lest that being be evil).

It could be argued that wilful ignorance is wrong.

all the sacred texts of the original religions clearly are in abhorrence towards the evil that has been associated with it.

Aside from the parts where the relevant deity commits or orders murder, genocide, rape, and other atrocities.

over the years religion has been the only beacon of light through the centuries. it is only the bias of those who oppose or fear the very concept of religion and faith that have so persecuted the way of life that has actually kept us going through our existence. it is for individuals to decide what they believe but for the masses it falls to decide what shall befall the human race and what they shall trust in.

Persecution complex much? For every example of a non-believer "persecuting" a believer, I can point to executions, purges, holy wars, and pogroms carried out by believers. And characterising a whole group of people who do not believe in your god for their own and varied reasons as "biased" and "fearful" is hypocritical and pathetic.

Please do us all the favour of adding something useful to the discussion next time.

[killybob]

like i said in the bit you MISSED OUT, the original texts exude only good will. its only the ass-holes that get into the system that corrupt and bias it. by the way i'm not actually all that religious i'm simply expressing my analytical view on the situations that have arisen through history. you see, from religion, i have noticed, has come the main laws that make our civilization safe. for example do not murder is one. please do not say that would have been thought up anyway cos it wouldn't. take cannibals for example. they murder and eat the victims just like the chimps we supposedly evolved out of. religious belief has brought more order to our modern day world that  ANYONE seems willing to give it credit for.