Prime examples of the dangerous costs of religion:

Definition for atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

Atheist who militantly advocate that their belief system is superior to and more preferential than that of people who have different beliefs, and who further advocate that all others must change and believe as they do, place themselves on par with the people they are criticizing. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

even more so: atheists define theri existence via theism. just in negatives. that is similar :-).

The militant - intolerant (good word!) - atheist lives in constant fear that somewhere, somehow, someone will find faith, hope, charity and peace in believing in a higher power. Focus on the negative aspects if you must, intolerant people tend to do that. But if you read history a little closer, you will see that trillions plus more people have found succor and peace in their respective religions. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

since religions are beliefs theism and atheism are beliefs the exact opposite of what you stated can be a POV too. Just replace atheist with theist (religious believer) and you have the same valid POV. you can`t argue beliefs.

Truth is Atheists seek truth, evidence, facts, and base their morals on logic. Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering, not necessarily based on religious dogma but on logic. Atheists do not fear that people will find hope, charity, peace in believing, but the opposite that such beliefs in fact cause despair, less charity, less peace. For an atheist to speak about the dysfunction of such beliefs pointing at the obvious such statements as yours above are thrown out as an ad hominen attack. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Bebe i know what you mean but atheism is also a belief. what you state is non-believe or sophism or scientific research. Believers never search for fact. atheists don`t necessarily seek truth anymore than theists do. Its very simple to explain. If you look at a word on how it is combined you see that a-thei -sm includes theo which is god. it defines itself thru the " non belief in god" which is a belief per se. you cannot really say that "god does not exist" in the same way that you can`t say "god does exist". Both are belief-systems. The existence of god is not to be proofen since real science can`t proof anything. Only make references and point out trúths valid within certain reference frames.
So - talking about scientific approval that "god does not exist" its not possible. You cannot say with certainty that "god does not exist" since no one has ever seen proof of it in a certain frame of reference. You can`t question a belief because a belief is based on science fiction (or drug induced writings - an austrian cartoonist portrayed the bible as product of hemp smoking people which holds some legitimacy to it - and he got death threats :-) ....and was not allowed to enter greece anymore (Greece = catholic orthodox).

so atheism is a belief system same as theism. they just hold opposite POVs. So if you are against religious belief systems its not a smart move to state you are an atheist. you could argue to be a non-believer ;-). Hope that helped. Otherwise, i think you are a great intellectual! I value your posts and i vallue the way you underline your arguments with quotations and references. Really really great! Keep up the great work. Love reading your posts!

Sounds mighty preachy to me, but I guess you can ascribe that to the fact that I refuse to follow the fundamental tenet of atheists’ religion—which is to deny others their faith and hope. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No they don`t deny others faith and hope. They just believe in the opposite of your faith to be faith and the opposite of your hope to be hope. the do not deny faith and hope at all, that is ;-)

Opportunity for discussion is limited when one side is convinced that they are unquestionably correct, and the opposing side has nothing of value to offer except the opportunity to criticize anything they say - which is true whether you are an atheist or religious. It usually ends in beating a dead horse. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Is the inability to admit being and never apologize for personal backstabbing included in the definition of "being unquestionably correct" as it happens within the mindframe of the definition for dogma ? I`d say, Yes? So i think Lauren , you are absolutely correct! Great POV. Thanks and AMEN to That!!!

Well according to two Federal judges, not inactivity. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I was wondering how long it would take for this last ruling to be noted. It goes way beyond the first one but so far no injunction against moving forward pending the appeals.

Is the inability to admit being and never apologize for personal backstabbing included in the definition of "being unquestionably correct" as it happens within the mindframe of the definition for dogma ? I`d say, Yes? So i think Lauren , you are absolutely correct! Great POV. Thanks and AMEN to That!!! Originally Posted by ninasastri

Now, now, I thought there was another thread dedicated for this.

You do understand what a debate is?

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

BLS
I think you confuse cause and effect. Religion has been the excuse for many, many wars, but the "cause" of none. The people in power use it as a lever to control those who do the killing and dieing.

The externalization of human evolution via technology should not confuse anyone into believing that we are somehow more advanced than our ancestors who squatted in caves and scribbled non-sense on dried sheep skins. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

i think you simplify things that can be more diverse. actually i understand what you say is that people in power use religions and therefor the effect is that religious people are the ones of less intelligence. Which i think is a too simple POV. If it was that simple it is not possible to explain why something like religions survived many thousand years of thinking and something like Marxism (which is a splendid idea as well) did not even survive half a century. I think it is shortsighted to see the influence religions have or what they mean to people as so simplistic. I do think further that religion as well as territory are things that should not be overestimated. First i propose to think that any, and i mean any nation is centristic and it has been the fact that religions go into missions and try to convert people. it has been especially true for anything catholic. Jews do not go on missions to convert people because it is not THAT easy to convert to Judaism, since its a birthright. It is possible but not so easy.

I do believe you make a valid point in stating that a lot of things can be used to justify wars, be it science or religion or territorial marks or power or what not. But i think centrism and the belief that the culture oneself lives in is "superiour" to other cultures is also a valid point.

But i think its not as simple as you stated, although its a valid and good point.

Well stated. Remove religion, and you do not remove violence, oppression and war, which means it is not the cause, merely one tool selected amongst many available. The purveyors of death, fear, chaos, power and destruction will simply find a different tool.
. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I agree wholeheartedly on this point. You bring a really good argument here, Lauren. I think the point he makes is overly simplyfying things. Remove anything you consider as "the enemy" and the only cause and you will find - as you stated above - that things are not one-dimensional and uni-causal. Many influences are possible and valid

But if you remove religion, you are probably also removing the only tool most people have to cope with violence, oppression and war, and the purveyors of death, fear, chaos, power and destruction. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

what about psychoanalysis (freudian or Frankl that is, not Jung - too religious too pose as opponent for your statement :-)..) or existentialism (Nietzsche) and self-reflection (Zen Buddhism)? i consider them very powerful tools.

WTF you bring up your pro-murder of children mantra every time one of us brings up the fact that the Tea Party is a non-religious semi-organization. I think a lot of you Pro-Murder folks would take a different path if you had to take that kids head outside the V canal and stick a pair of scissors into its brain.
Bebe says that all women have the right to kill that kid. OK Bebe, get your scissors ready doll and stick it in. Oh, you can't do it! You'd rather a doc do it! OK, then let's put the doc in jail for life. Murder is murder no matter what you call it or how you rationalize it.
Rant over! Sorry that some of you are offended. The dead kids were offended worse.

WTF you bring up your pro-murder of children mantra every time one of us brings up the fact that the Tea Party is a non-religious semi-organization. I think a lot of you Pro-Murder folks would take a different path if you had to take that kids head outside the V canal and stick a pair of scissors into its brain.
Bebe says that all women have the right to kill that kid. OK Bebe, get your scissors ready doll and stick it in. Oh, you can't do it! You'd rather a doc do it! OK, then let's put the doc in jail for life. Murder is murder no matter what you call it or how you rationalize it.
Rant over! Sorry that some of you are offended. The dead kids were offended worse. Originally Posted by John Bull

Pretty soon we're gonna needs ultramoderators to moderate the supermoderators.

It's a slippery slope to a communist hierarchy I tell ya!

Cheers,
Mazo.

Just a little dose of reality Mazo. Just a tiny little dose.

@ Nina – I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you, Luv.

even more so: atheists define theri existence via theism. just in negatives. that is similar :-). Originally Posted by ninasastri

I agree.

since religions are beliefs theism and atheism are beliefs the exact opposite of what you stated can be a POV too. Just replace atheist with theist (religious believer) and you have the same valid POV. you can`t argue beliefs. Originally Posted by ninasastri

That’s part of my argument: atheism is a belief system, a religion, not unlike the theistic belief systems—also religions. BLS argues otherwise.

No they don`t deny others faith and hope. They just believe in the opposite of your faith to be faith and the opposite of your hope to be hope. the do not deny faith and hope at all, that is ;-) Originally Posted by ninasastri

My comment was directed at only the militant atheists, e.g., BLS, who proselytize for their religion.

what about psychoanalysis (freudian or Frankl that is, not Jung - too religious too pose as opponent for your statement :-)..) or existentialism (Nietzsche) and self-reflection (Zen Buddhism)? i consider them very powerful tools. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I meant it to be a qualified statement: “most people.” The existentialists I’ve read, including Nietzsche, are replete with angst; thus, deeply depressing. They remind me of a Monty Python skit where a depressing individual drives all of his mates into deep despair where upon they rise and go off screen. You hear the off screen gun shot as they commit suicide, one by one—LOL. But then, sometimes I like to go to dark places too. Zen Buddhism is a religion, Luv.