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

[Razgovory]

So that graph Hans posted goes against his belief that the temperature is not rising, no? I mean, if almost all the anomalies are above 0.0C and the trend eerily steady above 0.2C the temperature is clearly rising. Or am I reading his rather suspicious graph wrong?

What is the relationship between "temperature anomalies", and average global temperature

[garbon]

if religion caused someone to blow himself up, then that same religion should have caused every follower to blow himself up.

I'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.

[Valmy]

I guess that's good though again I think it shows a cynicism about your children / safeguards them against apparently a 'weakness' you detected in yourself.

I don't think it is necessarily a weakness. I think a need for spirituality is something alot of humans share. So I want to provide them with an avenue to satisfy that need if necessary.

Still, I'm not at all judging, just again find it a bit odd that you are raising your children to be religious to prevent them from the off chance of adopting extremist religious views.

Why is it odd one might want to introduce positive values to his children before others with less positive values reach out to them?

[LaCroix]

I'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.

because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.

[garbon]

I don't think it is necessarily a weakness. I think a need for spirituality is something alot of humans share. So I want to provide them with an avenue to satisfy that need if necessary.

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

A susceptibility to falling to quackery is what I was thinking you were noting as a weakness.

Why is it odd one might want to introduce positive values to his children before others with less positive values reach out to them?

I don't see why your children in are in great danger of falling to dangerous religious views. I agree there is nothing odd in promoting positive values which, of course, can be done independently of religion or as part of one's religion. Still, strange to be noting that one is doing so 'basically to inoculate them from dangerous religious views'.

[viper37]

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.

Obviously, you do what you want with your own family, so I'm just discussing the general principle here.

I don't think it works that way.

Before the rise of radical Islam, the worst a Quebec family had to fear was a family member joining the Jehova's Witnesses or another similar sect.  People would cut family ties to embrace their new religion, refuse to mingle with people not of their religion, and obviously, for the Witnesses, refuse any kind of celebration.

It's obviously a million times different than waging Jihad on a foreign land by slaughtering infidels, but there are similarities.

These people, they weren't atheist.  They were born in a Catholic family.  They practised catholicism.  For a tiny few of them, they were born in some Protestant family.  Before the 60s, Catholic priests would literaly control the life of their Parishoniers.  They would tour the houses, reminding women to do their conjugal duties (i.e. make babies, even if it could kill you, even your husband was a violent drunk), admonishing those that did not attend Church at least twice a week, making sure no woman could have a baby unnoticed, outside of wedlock.
So, these people, they were raised in these kinds of families, in this kind of society, where religion was very important and very strict.

And suddenly, we gave them religious freedom.

Some people just could not handle it.  For the same reasons as there are people who will never adapt to capitalism.  They can not function without any clear rules.

Yet, having a strong religion did not prevent them from joining a religious sect and cutting ties with their families or selling all their belongings because that was what their new Faith asked of them.

Religion is not a shield against extreme religion.  Simply being atheist is not a shield either.  These kids that go and fight for ISIS, they come from religious families.  Omar Kadhr was from a deeply religious family, with a veiled mother&sister professing their hate against occidental values, Canada and America and a father working for Al-Queada.  He was and he still is religious.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was raised in a very religious family.  Yet, he became a terrorist along with his brother.

We have ample exhibit that moderate religion is not a shield against extremists.  Not talking about it is stupid.  Religion is out there, just like homosexuality, transgenderism, aids, global warming, etc.
What is important is not teach the kids a religion but to teach about them about religion.  Remind them how dangerous it can be when you get confused between scientific reality and beliefes.  Teach them critical sense, something most religion avoid like pest.  Teach them not to belief blindly, that it is not a blessing to be naive.  Teach them to agressively seek evidence of everything they're told.  Teach them about logic and how it does not contradict Faith, but always them that their spirituality is their own free choice and it is as private as sex.  Some people like having sex in public, some others like to pray in public.  There are places for that.  It's not ok to have sex at the shopping center, it should not be ok to have your religion at the shopping center either.

[garbon]

I'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.

because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.

Well, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.

[garbon]

Teach them critical sense, something most religion avoid like pest.  Teach them not to belief blindly, that it is not a blessing to be naive.  Teach them to agressively seek evidence of everything they're told.

Seems like a good way to push one's children into not being religious.

it should not be ok to have your religion at the shopping center either.

[viper37]

But some of our very best public policy decisions have been based on interpretations of religious texts.  Take the Civil Rights movement, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.  The anti-slavery movements were quite religious in its motivation.

The pro-slavery movement was deeply rooted in religious beliefs.

This isn't a question of religion being bad - it's simply a matter of bad policy.  And for that matter, bad theology.  There are plenty of bible verses about how God has given man stewardship over the earth, and that we must care fot it.

That's why religion belongs to the private sphere, not the public one.

My problem with religion is that while many religious people will profess religious tolerance (and act accordingly, I must give them that), there is zero tolerance for "not having a belief".  You believe that abortion should be illegal because God said so?  It kinda kills any argument there when you try to justify a contrary position with science.  A religious person would never tolerate that science could contradict what he perceives as a core belief.
That's why religion must be erased from all government spheres.  The State can not have a religion and it can not allow any religion to interact with it on a religious basis.  Religious people should not be treated differently because they are Chrisitans, Muslims, Jews or Ecologists.
Public policies should be based on science&logic, not what some holy book says.  Besides, with so many religions and so many interpretations, who is right?

[LaCroix]

Well, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.

i mean, i think it's similar to ethnicity. one reason (among many) some might go jihad is because they feel "their people" are under attack. so, in that sense, yeah, it can influence someone to do something - but only if the right ingredients are there to cause that person to act. my main point is that the actual scriptures or whatever don't actually matter. you'd have violent sects emerge from the religion of love. 

[viper37]

Seems like a good way to push one's children into not being religious.

No.  It teaches them that no one has the right to judge them based on their beliefs or lack there of.  My ancestors believed in werewolves and spirites, a view supported by the clergy.  How many priests today believes in werewolves and spirits?  Beliefs will evolve over time, we believe what we want to believe, but every decision we make must be grounded in reality, not what someone says we should do because that's what God said we should do.

http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i58/2/2/6/pc_3de7f081098af04e911bd12b61e3aa62.jpg

[garbon]

No.  It teaches them that no one has the right to judge them based on their beliefs or lack there of.  My ancestors believed in werewolves and spirites, a view supported by the clergy.  How many priests today believes in werewolves and spirits?  Beliefs will evolve over time, we believe what we want to believe, but every decision we make must be grounded in reality, not what someone says we should do because that's what God said we should do.

How are they supposed to see evidence of their religious beliefs that should encourage them to have faith?

http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i58/2/2/6/pc_3de7f081098af04e911bd12b61e3aa62.jpg

Oh, I forgot about your ridiculous position that it is okay to be religious as long as you act ashamed about it and never bring it up in mixed company.

[garbon]

Well, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.

i mean, i think it's similar to ethnicity. one reason (among many) some might go jihad is because they feel "their people" are under attack. so, in that sense, yeah, it can influence someone to do something - but only if the right ingredients are there to cause that person to act. my main point is that the actual scriptures or whatever don't actually matter. you'd have violent sects emerge from the religion of love. 

None of what you've just said suggests that religion has no role (apart from the simple assertion that the 'actual scripture or whatever don't actually matter'). Once again, different people react differently to different stimuli - much as interpretation of scripture can differ from one person to another.

[The Brain]

No cock worship at the shopping center, garbon. FFS.

[viper37]

I don't think I've ever heard of a religious reason for eugenics or forced sterilization of the disabled.

No, I don't think I've heard about this either.

I have however heard, more than once, a religion calling for the extermination of believers of another religion.  Even now you have religious people calling for active discrimination against members of another religion, some of them maybe you next President, who knows?
I have often heard of priests telling women to continue having sex with their violent husbands and not breakings what God united.
I have often heard of priests telling women to keep on having babies even when the doctor said it would kill them.