Prime examples of the dangerous costs of religion:

Ok...Now stop hijacking the thread WTF and get back on topic! Originally Posted by Valerie

WTF is the topic!?

Just a thought: I have always hoped there was an entity smarter than me guiding this universe; agreed but, there are a lot of people that think they are the smartest entity ever. really I just "pray" that all those smarter than all of us other people don't screw up a moral compass that seems to have evolved and been with us as we have become more civilized.science has allowed our lives to become more civilized. We no longer have to toll in the fields all day just to eat, if you wanna pray for more of that, more power to you Originally Posted by oden

I do abhor organized religion with a passion, but I don't try and convert or pre-judge someone solely based on their religious views....

I am an atheist, yes there are a lot of myths about us, and I find myself getting quite frustrated at times because I get a lot of shit from some religious people, but at the same time I recognize that some religious people get the same shit from over the top atheists...

My feelings on the matter: Believe what you want to believe because that is YOUR right, and just because you may see things different than another does not make them or you any better/worse. I have some great friends, some which are catholic, protestant, muslim, etc... all wonderful people, and I don't let our differences of religious opinions get in the way of our friendships or my love for them....just my .02 Originally Posted by Valerie

Finally, someone who makes sense. I think I've thrown that out before that any extremist is a cancer on society, right or left, theist or non, black or white or what have you. When one segment of society decides their way is the right and only way, then conflict, suffering and tyranny ensues. IBS's dogma is no different than the Bible toting Tea Party, same stripes-different colors. Their end goal is ensuring that the 'other side' is repressed and stripped of any voice or representation. I think history has proven where that leads.
In my youth I've travelled extensively and partaken numerous times in different religious celebrations and ultimately it led me to my set of core beliefs. One thing I did discern was that humans innately have a need to belong to something larger, whether a religious group, political organization or a non-concrete set of beliefs. Religion (or lack thereof in IBS case) fills those needs and depending on the persons needs sense of self dictates how much it consumes your life. I think the op should change the title of the thread to the 'Dangerous costs of extremism'. Period.

So Stalin, an atheist, is one of the greatest mass-murderers ever. But there have also been plenty of theist mass-murderers, so it’s really just a human trait dressed up in different fashions. Again, overall, because of the relative numbers, theists are undoubtedly responsible for more deaths than atheists. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Fundamentally, I am arguing that religion has a place in society—it has provided and continues to provide peace and solace to untold numbers of people. Atheists who make it their primary focus in life to “convert” others to their way of thinking are evangelizing for a new religion. Your argument that theist have caused millions of deaths is valid, but as I’ve argued, atheist have done the same; hence, they are no better. The real issue is not how many died, but that any died under atheistic rule.

Nicolae Ceauşescu’s regime in Romania stands as one of the most brutal and corrupt in modern history. On Christmas Day 1974, Ceauşescu boasted that in 25 years atheism would triumph in Romania. He purposefully initiated public works projects that required historic churches and whole villages be destroyed. The people were relocated into public apartments that provided no place to worship, no kitchens, no food, rationed heat and electricity and shared toilets. Under Ceauşescu, as many as one in eight Romanians worked for the secret police guaranteeing brutal political, religious and ethnic repression; thus, insuring that all Romanians were “loyal, atheistic communists.” Under Ceauşescu, some two million citizens, or one-tenth of Romania’s population, were murdered.

Again, the real issue is not how many died, but that any died under atheistic rule. Atheism, as a religion, is no better than any other theistic religion. Whenever in history—for the first time—an atheist took a theist by the neck, and forced the theist to submit, atheism ceased to be an altruistic alternative to theism. You have already conceded that this has already happened.

Equivocation! Equivocation! And why did the Protestants princes of Germany make war against the Pope’s legions, or why did Kings of France send armies against the Huguenots? I’ll give you hint—they killed “in the name of ‘protect my powerbase by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence.’” How can you expect to use one argument to declaim one set of autocrats then have the audacity to claim it doesn’t apply to another set of autocrats? Equivocation! Equivocation! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Edit: Ok I agree, however hard numbers for ‘religious’ deaths are not really doable since the time frame is so long. If you add Stalin and Mao together the number is pretty hard to top. I’ve always thought it was a bogus argument in either direction.

by the way are you speaking of this? http://www.white-history.com/hwr43.htm Asking the question because I am not that familiar with Germany history or France, however I would imagine they did so to protect themselves from the Catholics. But I will need to do some research on it and get back with you on it.

I just don't try and shove my beliefs down someones throat...

I'm not an extremist... Originally Posted by Valerie

What exactly is an atheist extremist? Atheism is about seeking truth and facts, and pointing these out, as well as speaking out about it. Atheists do not "preach beliefs" they give facts. Where as an extremist is someone who will take things to the utmost extreme extent that they can. Most extremists with regard to religions take religious texts at face value, then with that they believe it so passionately that they act on it in extreme ways. Example: Bombing abortion clinics in the name of the bible and beliefs based on it; The Koran which tells Muslims to kill all nonbelievers and those who act on it, such as the twin towers. I believe religions take the cake in expending resources to "convince" others. You don't see atheists going to any of those extremes.

Fundamentally, I am arguing that religion has a place in society—it has provided and continues to provide peace and solace to untold numbers of people.
. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bebe, I have to agree with I. B.

You are looking at only the evil in a segment of society, what you are failing to see is that every segment of society has so called evil elements.


My only argument with religion vs. science is that one is ambiguous. One turns on the whims of man yet the other is discipline. Religious folks think the know the truth and scientific folks search for it. But if you look at the actual actions of religious folks you will see that they do indeed believe in science over religion, the vast majority might pray when a loved one is sick but they go to the doctor to try and heal them. That speaks volumes. If religious folks want to stick their head in the sand over this fact well then ....Bless their hearts!

Oh and one last thing, religious folks have no problem condeming me to hell but hate it when I make fun of them for doing so! Oh the irony.

Bebe, I have to agree with I. B.

You are looking at only the evil in a segment of society, what you are failing to see is that every segment of society has so called evil elements.


My only argument with religion vs. science is that one is ambiguous. One turns on the whims of man yet the other is discipline. Religious folks think the know the truth and scientific folks search for it. But if you look at the actual actions of religious folks you will see that they do indeed believe in science over religion, the vast majority might pray when a loved one is sick but they go to the doctor to try and heal them. That speaks volumes. If religious folks want to stick their head in the sand over this fact well then ....Bless their hearts!

Oh and one last thing, religious folks have no problem condeming me to hell but hate it when I make fun of them for doing so! Oh the irony. Originally Posted by WTF

I respect that you and others have their opinions no doubt. I enjoy the debate. I still hold to my beliefs as many many other atheists do, that religion does not have it's place in society. People can find peace, solace, hope with out a religion or belief system that is false. Again I quote Sam Harris on the belief that religion is beneficial to society:

"Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?"

. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?" Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

The moral question as I see it is which get the most poor people fed. Right now that is religion. Second, the poor do not give a flip why you are feeding them, they are hungry.

So while I agree with Sam's point, in practical terms, I support religion.

The moral question as I see it is which get the most poor people fed. Right now that is religion. Second, the poor do not give a flip why you are feeding them, they are hungry.

So while I agree with Sam's point, in practical terms, I support religion. Originally Posted by WTF

So are you saying that only people of faith feed the poor? Give medical treatment to the poor? That simply is not the case. There are a tremendous amount of people (doctors, nurses, aid workers) volunteers for secular organizations all who have done as much and without borders who do not waste time telling people about the virgin birth of Jesus. Nor do they tell people in sub-Saharan Africa--where nearly four million people die from AIDS every year--that condom use is sinful. Christian missionaries have been known to preach the sinfulness of condom use in villages where no other information about condoms is available. This kind of piety is genocidal.

Again repeating, " We might also wonder, in passing, which is more moral: helping people purely out of concern for their suffering, or helping them because you think the creator of the universe will reward you for it?

So are you saying that only people of faith feed the poor? Give medical treatment to the poor?
Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

No.

I am saying that the poor do not care why they are being helped, they just wanna be helped.

I agree , the condom thing is stupid. They ought to get locked out of the pearly gates for that idiotic stance!

No.

I am saying that the poor do not care why they are being helped, they just wanna be helped.

I agree , the condom thing is stupid. They ought to get locked out of the pearly gates for that idiotic stance! Originally Posted by WTF

True on that statement. When people are desperate they don't care where the help comes from as long as they are getting it.

What exactly is an atheist extremist? Atheism is about seeking truth and facts, and pointing these out, as well as speaking out about it. Atheists do not "preach beliefs" they give facts. Where as an extremist is someone who will take things to the utmost extreme extent that they can. Most extremists with regard to religions take religious texts at face value, then with that they believe it so passionately that they act on it in extreme ways. Example: Bombing abortion clinics in the name of the bible and beliefs based on it; The Koran which tells Muslims to kill all nonbelievers and those who act on it, such as the twin towers. I believe religions take the cake in expending resources to "convince" others. You don't see atheists going to any of those extremes. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/03/at...extremism.html


"I suggest that "atheist extremism" is the term we have been seeking. It carries no requirement of adherence to a particular doctrine, and it does not imply violence. But what does it mean, and what would an atheist extremist look like?

The atheist extremist would hold views which would be considered extreme by most members of the atheist community. Like any other type of extremist, an atheist extremist would be irrational. This irrationality would be manifest through cognitive errors such as (and not limited to) the following:

Overgeneralization - Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples (e.g., "Because one Christian does something bad, all Christians are bad.").
Dichotomous Thinking - Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations (e.g., "Atheists are smart; believers are stupid.").
Disqualifying the Positive - Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one's negative view of some group (e.g., "Christians may give a lot to charity but only to promote their agenda of brainwashing.").
Through irrationality, the atheist extremist would maintain his or her position by selectively focusing on supportive evidence while ignoring or explaining away contradictory evidence. Attempts to question his or her worldview would be experienced as personal attacks and would solidify extreme positions. Such an individual would form an intense emotional attachment to his or her viewpoint which would override that justified by evidence and reason.

I have not encountered many atheists like this, but I have come across a few. I don't believe they are common, but I do believe they exist. Like extremists of other brands, they have stopped thinking and exist simply to argue a viewpoint they may no longer be able to articulate."

And yes, there are a lot of innocent loves taken at the hand of religion ( another reason I HATE religion), but surely you realize that there are plenty of serial killers, rapists, school shooters etc... who don't commit those crimes for any religious purpose...

http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/03/at...extremism.html


"I suggest that "atheist extremism" is the term we have been seeking. It carries no requirement of adherence to a particular doctrine, and it does not imply violence. But what does it mean, and what would an atheist extremist look like?


And yes, there are a lot of innocent loves taken at the hand of religion ( another reason I HATE religion), but surely you realize that there are plenty of serial killers, rapists, school shooters etc... who don't commit those crimes for any religious purpose... Originally Posted by Valerie

Some reason it just didn't show the pic! Guess you will have to click the link..lol

Some reason it just didn't show the pic! Guess you will have to click the link..lol Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

The Militant Atheist

Quote: “Fundamentally, I am arguing that religion has a place in society—it has provided and continues to provide peace and solace to untold numbers of people"


There is no doubt that many people derive comfort and solace from the community of their personal religions.

The error, IMHO, is in allowing a fondness and feeling of comfort to provide camouflage for some of the ugliness inherent in many religions.

Historical examples are widely available, but maybe one of the most poignant of our modern day is the cover-up of pedophilia in the catholic church in the 20 century with connections that ‘may’ lead all the way to the current pope. Many, if not most, catholic folks are probably pretty decent people who would never think of harming children, but by not standing up and demanding a complete accounting of their church leaders, do they provide a semblance of cover for the crimes that most definitely have been committed by priests, and covered up by bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals and perhaps (probably?) popes.


Quote: "Atheists who make it their primary focus in life to “convert” others to their way of thinking are evangelizing for a new religion."



Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that baldness is a hair color. Absence of belief in a god is not a religion. Talking about absence of belief in a god is not evangelizing for a religion. And atheism has no tenets, dogmas or practices that it requires it’s followers to conform to. In a nutshell atheism is “no belief in god”.


Quote: "Your argument that theist have caused millions of deaths is valid, but as I’ve argued, atheist have done the same; hence, are no better."



I can agree with you its not a matter if atheists are better than theists Bad people will do bad things. Good people will do good things. Average people will do average things. Everyone will make some mistakes along the way. Dogma (like that contained in most religions) may allow otherwise good people to do bad things for what their traditions say are good reasons.



Like Uganda creating laws to allow the murder of gay people because of a few lines in the old testament.


Like children being burned for witchcraft in other parts of ‘Christian’ Africa.


Like Islamic men throwing acid into women’s faces for daring to show too much skin - because of a few lines in the qu’ran.


Like rape victims being treated like instigators and criminals under shariah law in most Islamic countries.


Quote: "The real issue is not how many died, but that any died under atheistic rule."


By that argument, you are just as guilty of the same equivocation that I am assessing.


Quote: "Again, the real issue is not how many died, but that any died under atheistic rule. Atheism, as a religion, is no better than any other theistic religion."



See above about ‘atheism as a religion’. Quite simply, it’s not.
Then with regard to what was posted in an earlier post with regard to Stalin etc;


Quote: “And why did the Protestants princes of Germany make war against the Pope’s legions, or why did Kings of France send armies against the Huguenots? I’ll give you hint—they killed “in the name of power by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence.’” How can you expect to use one argument to declaim one set of autocrats then have the audacity to claim it doesn’t apply to another set of autocrats? Equivocation! Equivocation!”



Because if one group is doing it in the name of god, they are utilizing religion as a means to violence.

The Romanian example above is an interesting example. I’m not familiar with that part of Romanian history - so I'm not qualified to comment. I wonder if we’re getting the whole story here, though.


Again, it’s true, comfort and community are available without religion. And while religion may provide comfort to many, that comfort feeling and fondness of community should not be allowed to provide cover to some of the ugliness that we see sourced in religion even today.



Another good place to go might be the global quality of life index that seems to show that those countries that seem to be the least religious tend to rank highest in measures of happiness, fulfillment and quality of life, while those that appear to be most-religious tend to be lower in ranks. While correlations does not necessarily equate to causation, it would seem that these countries higher on the Quality of Life scale are doing something right, and that includes reduced religion.