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

[viper37]

I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.

I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually).  Isn't that how he created Hercules?

[frunk]

It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.

But I think that's a more general problem, abdication of responsibility, that's not specifically religious.  Conspiracy theorists, New Age beliefs, Mono's cult of "nothing should change, and nothing will" are just as dangerous.  It's easy and quite relaxing to say that either nothing can be done or that someone else more powerful will take care of it.

[viper37]

You never did catch on about the Democracy thing did you?

Assad claims he is a democratically elected leader, and he has election score to prove it.  Ergo, Syria is a democracy.  Same with Saddam Hussein pre-invasion.  Castro supporters often claim there are elections, more than in Canada, so Cuba is a democracy.

[The Brain]

I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.

I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually).  Isn't that how he created Hercules?

As long as he didn't tell them he was Jewish it wasn't rape.

[viper37]

I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain.  There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.

You do not need all Christians to agree with him. I do not think even a majority of US Christians agree with him.  You never need a majority of extremists to create problems.  Just a vocal minority.  Muslims who support ISIS are a tiny fraction of the global muslim population.  But they're just enough to create problems for everyone else.

[Berkut]

It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.

But I think that's a more general problem, abdication of responsibility, that's not specifically religious.  Conspiracy theorists, New Age beliefs, Mono's cult of "nothing should change, and nothing will" are just as dangerous.  It's easy and quite relaxing to say that either nothing can be done or that someone else more powerful will take care of it.

I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".

[Berkut]

I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.

The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.

If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.

And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.

This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.

On the contrary, this particular religion contains myths in which human actions directly lead to widespread destruction at the hands of a vengeful God - Noah's Flood, for example.    Or Sodom and Gehmorrah.

But peopple like Inhofe would simply point out that those were in response to people defying God - and he is doing exactly the opposite of defying God, hence the comparison simply does not apply.

To the extent that they feel a possible disaster based on Gods wrath, they are supporting Kentucky clerks in their efforts to avoid it - not demanding that we burn less fossil fuels.

Debatable which myth would apply to Florida's impending immersion in the sea ... 

Of course - that is the point - it is debatable. And if Florida DOES end up under 6 feet of water, Inhofe will simply point out that it is punishment for letting gay people get married, not a result of human activity.

In the flood and S&H, those were terrible things that happened not because humans made them happen, but because GOD made them happen to punish humans.

That is not even remotely similar to the idea that human activity can result in a flood even if God doesn't want said flood to happen.

[Capetan Mihali]

Grumbler's not that bad, but I'm out.

[garbon]

But they're just enough to create problems for everyone else.

Everyone?

[Martinus]

I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.

I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually).  Isn't that how he created Hercules?

Even today some people do not consider it to be rape - I am sure during the ancient Greek times it wasn't.

[Hamilcar]

I am basically with Steven Weinberg on this issue:

Quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

[Eddie Teach]

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Mr Weinberg sounds rather naive.

[The Brain]

Well if you're in the "you are what you do" camp (which isn't unreasonable), that kind of miracle would indeed require divine intervention.

[frunk]

I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".

There's no anti-vacciners in Congress?  How about truthers of various flavors?  Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.

[lustindarkness]

I enjoy Disney World, but I can deal with Florida sinking into the ocean.