Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

[SeddyRocky]

To play the religious advocate: People may want to push away their individual responsibility due to "the will of God"/anything religious like that.

BUT, if they really wanted to do horrible things, such as mass murders, etc, they would have found another way if religion wasn't there. It could have been that they did it for
- The president, I'm sure he wanted to have these people killed anyway!
- Parents, look daddy I can hold a sword and kill infidels!
- Hallucinations
- Drugs
- Another authority
- Mental illness...

Point being, I doubt anyone turned crazy over religion and started doing bad things, that they wouldn't have done if there hadn't been something similar to religion available for them. At the crusades, religion happened to be an excellent excuse to rape, pillage, kill and take over land. Worked for the vikings. And in China, religious people were hunted to please an authority...

Then again, what people USE religion for is often horrible, even when it isn't related to Jihad or other holy wars.  Anyone watched the "gay exorcism" on youtube? for example? Religion can be used by twist your mind!... but so can propaganda, pseudo-science (and real science, misinformation/misinterpretation!) and other old books. Or just your parents beating you with a stick.

Point: Religion in itself is not dangerous, but how people use and abuse it is very dangerous.

[Hamish MacWolf]

Point being, I doubt anyone turned crazy over religion and started doing bad things, that they wouldn't have done if there hadn't been something similar to religion available for them.

Point well made. It reminds me of an analyst, commenting on the case of a British nursery school worker being charged with paedophilia. It isn’t a case of child workers being likely to become paedophiles, but rather, paedophiles becoming child workers to gain access to children. Many atrocities committed in the name of religion are done so by people who are more interested in the atrocities, than the religion.

But religion makes a convenient scapegoat to its opponents, and is much easier to summarise than investigating a complex history of racism, cultural tensions and inequality in the political system.

[Belthus]

People fight over practical things such as land and oil. People also fight over controversial ideas such as religion and political ideology. The thing about religion is that I don't see everyone coming to an agreement about one true religion. Someday everyone might agree about the best way to order society, since that at least has some visible outcomes that we can use to guide us. But barring some supernatural departure from history, we are unlikely to come to agreement about beliefs that are not based on evidence.

[SeddyRocky]

People fight over practical things such as land and oil. People also fight over controversial ideas such as religion and political ideology. The thing about religion is that I don't see everyone coming to an agreement about one true religion. Someday everyone might agree about the best way to order society, since that at least has some visible outcomes that we can use to guide us. But barring some supernatural departure from history, we are unlikely to come to agreement about beliefs that are not based on evidence.

Then again, I don't see that as possible. Even if fire rained from the sky and the Archangels descended and screamed "Repent, Harmaggedon is here!" I bet that there'd still be a lot of people that wouldn't believe in God/Christianty/etc. Or should some other divine sign be shown, it would probably be interpreted/misinterpreted in a million different ways...

People just don't want to be all like

[Hamish MacWolf]

Precisely.

Viz. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10154.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10154.0.html)

[Scaredgirl]

Even if fire rained from the sky and the Archangels descended and screamed "Repent, Harmaggedon is here!" I bet that there'd still be a lot of people that wouldn't believe in God/Christianty/etc. Or should some other divine sign be shown, it would probably be interpreted/misinterpreted in a million different ways...

People just don't want to be all like

I think that's a very weak argument because you make it sound like atheists refuse to see the facts, when there are currently zero actual evidence for the existence of some higher power. If something like what you describe there would happen, I think every single atheist in the world would change their opinion, because it's the lack of evidence that made them atheists in the first place, and Archangels would be very solid evidence.

The point you are trying to make works when we talk about religious people. No matter how much evidence you present to them, it will never be enough because religion is based on faith alone. If you took away a religion from a believer, you would basically take away his/her soul and the reason for his/her existence.

[SeddyRocky]

I actually referred to the OTHER religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pantheism, etc which are not judeo-christian, and thus have a firm belief already which is not based on evidence but faith. Not believing in God/Christianty is not something exclusive to atheists.

I happen to be an atheist and as I've said in about three topics already, I'd change my mind pretty darn quick if something like that would happen. But some of my more fundamental fellow atheists would surely deny it if, for example, they'd never seen the angels for themselves but only on the news.

[ratcharmer]

I think that's a very weak argument because you make it sound like atheists refuse to see the facts, when there are currently zero actual evidence for the existence of some higher power. If something like what you describe there would happen, I think every single atheist in the world would change their opinion, because it's the lack of evidence that made them atheists in the first place, and Archangels would be very solid evidence.

The point you are trying to make works when we talk about religious people. No matter how much evidence you present to them, it will never be enough because religion is based on faith alone. If you took away a religion from a believer, you would basically take away his/her soul and the reason for his/her existence.

Firstly, simply because you do not find the evidence in favor of any religious belief convincing does not mean that there is no evidence at all.

Secondly, you're making the assumption that every person of a given belief (atheist or theist beliefs) holds it for exactly the same reasons. Not only that but you've made the assumption that it is impossible to be an atheist for illogical reasons, or to be a theist for logical ones.

Those are really some extremely inflammatory assumptions to make, and they're not logically defensible ones either.

[Scaredgirl]

Firstly, simply because you do not find the evidence in favor of any religious belief convincing does not mean that there is no evidence at all.

It's not only me, it's the whole scientific community. There is no actual evidence in favor of any religion, at least not how the word is generally understood. You can of course take some random incident and call it "evidence", but unless the scientific requirements for credible evidence are met, it's not evidence no matter how many times you say it. For example stories written in a book are not evidence of anything but a vivid imagination.

Secondly, you're making the assumption that every person of a given belief (atheist or theist beliefs) holds it for exactly the same reasons. Not only that but you've made the assumption that it is impossible to be an atheist for illogical reasons, or to be a theist for logical ones.

I cannot see how you could be an atheist because of illogical reasons. Religion itself is not about logic, it's about belief. If I were an atheist because of illogical reasons, that would mean that the evidence is right there but I refuse to see it. That's not the case because there is no evidence like that.

I'll give you an example of illogical. There are millions of pieces of evidence supporting the theory of Evolution collected all around the world by the most brilliant minds of our time. Still there are millions of religious people, who contrary to all the evidence, believe that evolution isn't happening.

Now that's illogical.

[ratcharmer]

As a microbiologist I must disagree with your claim that the "whole scientific community" supports the viewpoint that there is no evidence whatsoever for religion.

So does Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the lead scientists in charge of the human genome project:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08-07/news/17305535_1_dr-francis-s-collins-human-genome-project-atheist

I can name others all day long if you like.

I've run into the claim that only scientific data is evidence a couple of times now. This is a very silly thing to claim. As I've said previously, what you ate for lunch yesterday is not scientifically testable, but it can be established using historical or legal evidence.

As far as the illogical atheist goes, are you saying it's impossible for someone to become atheist to spite their strict religious parents? or because they simply don't want to accept the possibility of consequences for some of their actions? or even because they simply hadn't put much thought into the idea at all?

Even if we assume for the moment that there is no way to possibly become theist after a thorough and logical look at all the available evidence, then it's still possible for someone to be perfectly logical and still a theist, if they're given incomplete data.

As far as the evolution example goes . . . congratulations? You've found an example of an illogical belief held by a small subset of Christians. This establishes that all religion is illogical because . . . ?

(let me know if this is off-topic here an we can move it to another thread)

[smuglapse]

As far as the illogical atheist goes, are you saying it's impossible for someone to become atheist to spite their strict religious parents?

Yes, that is impossible.  Someone can claim to be an atheist (whether they are or not) to spite their parents, but they can't change their internal dialogue to spite anybody.

or because they simply don't want to accept the possibility of consequences for some of their actions?

That sounds like lunacy.  What does that have to do with being an atheist or theist?

or even because they simply hadn't put much thought into the idea at all?

If they hadn't put much thought into it then they don't hold any position.  Right?

Even if we assume for the moment that there is no way to possibly become theist after a thorough and logical look at all the available evidence, then it's still possible for someone to be perfectly logical and still a theist, if they're given incomplete data.

This is true.  But you have to identify when you have been given incomplete data.

When I was growing up I was told certain things were true:
2+2=4.
Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth.
God loves you.

Then I learned that some people didn't believe in God and some people believed that there were many gods.  For truth to hold any meaning only one of those groups could be right.  Someone didn't know what the other group knew.  People couldn't argue about something like this if there was clear and complete data.  I considered that what I had been brought up with may not be the view that was holding all the right info.

[ratcharmer]

Yes, that is impossible.  Someone can claim to be an atheist (whether they are or not) to spite their parents, but they can't change their internal dialogue to spite anybody

Try this little experiment: sometime when you're feeling rotten, force yourself to smile. Then give a full belly laugh. You'll feel better afterwards. If you pretend to be something long enough you will turn into that thing.

Or, as Steppenwolf said "wearing masks that turn to skin, hiding what you could've been"

If that doesn't satisfy you, try these on for size:

Suppose the parents are abusive, and the child comes to associate the abuse with religion. Said child then declares religion to be false because of the conflict between his/her parents actions and religions preaching about love.

Or alternately, a child is lovingly raised in a strictly atheistic household, but lives next door to a crazed "hellfire and brimstone" type who insists that all atheists will burn for eternity. Hearing someone claim that their loving parents will be harshly punished would doubtlessly cause the child to doubt the validity of the religious person's claims, and thereafter would probably be dubious towards any religion.

Neither of these are logical decisions, but emotional ones.

or because they simply don't want to accept the possibility of consequences for some of their actions?

That sounds like lunacy.  What does that have to do with being an atheist or theist?

Suppose I deeply enjoy eating ice cream (okay, so maybe I really do). I've been eating it all my life and intend to keep eating ice cream. Then a religion comes along saying that eating ice cream is a mortal sin, and I will be punished for it. I'll be even less likely to accept things said by that religion than I normally would because I don't want it to be true.

Again, it's an emotional decision, not a logical one.

If they hadn't put much thought into it then they don't hold any position.  Right?

I've met many people of a wide variety of beliefs, including atheism & agnosticism, who held their beliefs simply because of that's what their peer group frequently held. Consider:
http://xkcd.com/185/