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

[LaCroix]

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.

see my earlier comments in this thread re: interpretation.

[viper37]

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

You teach them about the various beliefs, you encourage their curiosity to read about it, and you have a frank discussion on the difference between mythology and reality, between legend and history.

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.

No, it's not like it's homosexuality

You don't have to be ashamed of your religion, no more than I should be ashamed of my lack of religion.
People are free to have a religion, but we are also free to not have one.

And it's the same about sexual orientation.  You're free to bang whomever you want to bang.  We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.

[viper37]

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

When and where?

[Valmy]

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'.

But these are specifically positive religious and spiritual values.

[grumbler]

But these are specifically positive religious and spiritual values.

I'm not sure that there are such things.  I've never seen one.

[garbon]

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

It's my hot body, I'll do what I want.

[garbon]

We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.

Weird given that, as Marti has pointed out many times, heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality in public on a daily basis.

[Razgovory]

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

When and where?

Scientific racism, Eugenics, the forced sterilization I was referring to earlier (which was finally outlawed in Sweden back in 2012).  The Soviets believed that history was a science and tried to eradicate religion because it stood in the way of this particular form of science.

[crazy canuck]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

[Razgovory]

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.

I've heard of atheists talking about discrimination of people on the basis of religion.  Heard right here in fact.

[Razgovory]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

Uh, no.  Do you think you can link me that he says his assertions are pure rhetoric?  That would clear thing up quite a bit.

[crazy canuck]

Read what I said again

[Razgovory]

Read what I said again

I read it again.  What exactly did I miss?

[jimmy olsen]

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.

It all depends on the focus of the believer in question. 

In the 19th century American evangelicals actively promoted various and vast societal reforms because they believed that only by bringing the world closer to perfection could the second coming of Christ occur. The Kingdom of God had to be established by believers on Earth for Christ to rule over.

Most evangelicals today are premillenials, they believe that Christ will return to a world steeped in sin and he will build the Kingdom himself.

[Razgovory]

Presumably if Imhoe didn't believe in climate change for some other unrelated reason, such as the fact he represents a State where the fossil fuel industry is important, it would be okay.