Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[garbon]

And young people raised in the West do go off to fight for ISIS. Strange, yet bizarre yet it happened over ten thousand times. And many thousand more people convert to weird religions over here every year.

So I think religion should be embraced, since clearly it fulfills some need that people often go seeking for and leading them to dangerous places otherwise.

I don't think so. There are plenty of people, myself included, who do not embrace religion and do not go off into dangerous places otherwise. Seems odd to indoctrinate your children with the most innocuous form of religion in hopes that it will prevent them from seeking out a 'dangerous' one.

Really strikes me as an overly cynical view on the people your children might turn out to be.

[Valmy]

Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.

Basing road construction on engineering principles based on scientific results has yet to be proven to be that dangerous.

[Valmy]

I don't think so. There are plenty of people, myself included, who do not embrace religion and do not go off into dangerous places otherwise. Seems odd to indoctrinate your children with the most innocuous form of religion in hopes that it will prevent them from seeking out a 'dangerous' one.

I am not indoctrinating them. I am simply saying 'this is our spirituality if you need it'. If they do not need it then fine. If they do well here I am providing them with a healthy option.

I don't know what what kind of nazi-esque brainwashing you think I am doing but get back to reality. I am amused you think I am some sort of cult leader.

Really strikes me as an overly cynical view on the people your children might turn out to be.

What the fuck? I do actually believe these spiritual values, it is not cynical at all. Where did you dream up these delusions?

[The Brain]

Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.

The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history.

[garbon]

What the fuck? I do actually believe these spiritual values, it is not cynical at all. Where did you dream up these delusions?

I think this might be what you said:

So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.

I don't see anything in there that says 'I'm introducing my kids to my sincerely held beliefs because I think those beliefs are good for them.' You're the one who created the argument that you've made them religious, basically to inoculate you all.

[The Brain]

In a rare and fruitful coincidence his religion is inoculation.

[Martinus]

I love how the crazy people, like Raz, have these little pet causes they run into the ground with their insanity.

[Hansmeister]

Because of things like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html

"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."

For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:


As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer

Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.

"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.

This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

[Valmy]

I don't see anything in there that says 'I'm introducing my kids to my sincerely held beliefs because I think those beliefs are good for them.' You're the one who created the argument that you've made them religious, basically to inoculate you all.

Ah yes I can see why if taken to an extreme that might be misleading.

No I introduced them to a religion to inoculate them from the quackery I found myself becoming susceptible to.

I found a religion which I believe preached truthful spiritual principles free from dangerous nuttery. This has been very good for me and enabled me to embrace that part of myself. If my children have similar urges later in life I have, hopefully, provided them with a home.

[garbon]

Because of things like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html

"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."

For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:


As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer

Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.

"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.

This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

That was a strange post - even for you.

[Valmy]

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

Well I think most of us are not that fanatical. We can easily be dissuaded with good arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately from the opposition I mostly get crazy conspiracy theories and baseless claims of dangerous fanaticism rather than convincing arguments.

In any case pollution is probably a bad thing. Might as well engineer things to produce less of it.

[Hansmeister]

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

Well I think most of us are not that fanatical. We can easily be dissuaded with good arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately from the opposition I mostly get crazy conspiracy theories and baseless claims of dangerous fanaticism rather than convincing arguments.

In any case pollution is probably a bad thing. Might as well engineer things to produce less of it.

No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.

[grumbler]

I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.

We were discussing this very topic in AP World today:  why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD?  Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc).  The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them.  That was reward after death.

Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed.  Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order.  The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes:  reward after death.

Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.

[Razgovory]

Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.

The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history.

What year did Sweden stop sterilizations?  Last year?  The year before?  I forget.

[grumbler]

No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.

True.  the climate models predict that the most recent recent decade would be warmer than the previous decade, and that is what the data shows, so obviously the models are wrong.  Spectacularly wrong, because they are inconvenient.

Why believe inconvenient data when you can believe convenient beliefs?