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

[Capetan Mihali]

Think I should join the Episcopal Church?  The denomination that's "Protestant, yet Catholic" (as they self-describe)?  Incense, confession, WASPs, and gay-married priests?

Go to a service and check it out.  If it speaks to you, go to some more.

[Berkut]

Because people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.

and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar.

Except that they don't. Plenty of people in the world do NOT blow themselves up with the promise of eternal paradise on their lips.

Hell, plenty of religious people don't do that, even if they are in fact in terrible conditions.

I simply do not understand this idea.

Religions are not all the same - belief systems are not all the same. They have actual content that define their followers behaviors.

Mormons don't blow themselves up. Nor do Tibetan monks. I cannot help but think that their religious strictures that say "Don't blow yourselves up" compared to "Blowing yourself up is the will of God" might have some kind of significant effect on their actions.

there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause,

Yeah, it is called fanaticism, and it is driven by either

a) Abject hopelessness, or
c) The belief that it will result in real and tangible rewards such that there is considerable personal and social pressure to engage in those activities.

There are many, many examples of people in case A who do not engage in suicide bombing. Contrary to that, in nearly every case of suicide bombing, those engaging in the act (and their families) would be telling you that it is sanctioned and rewarded by their god.

Pretending like this is not so...I don't understand that.

and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.

Who said it is a necessary ingredient?

Nobody is claiming that religion is the sole cause of extremism in the world, just that it is a common cause we should recognize that.

Your argument is like saying we should not care about drunk driving, because sometimes people are in car accidents where there isn't any alcohol involved at all.

[viper37]

Everyone?

Well, generally, where a minority of extremists manage to take over a country, things go bad for everyone else, yes.
See, the Nazis took power with about 1/3 of the German's support, and I'm not sure their rule was in the best interest of Germany.
The Hamas does not represent a majority of Palestinians, yet, they make life difficult for every other Palestiniens.
ISIS supporters aren't the majority of mulsims, far from it, but there's enough of them to create problems for a lot of people, if left to grow unchecked.  Or you're telling me that a country more radical then Saudi Arabia would be a nice place to live in?

[viper37]

that's not proof, though. is suicide bombing by muslim radicals a fairly recent tactic? (seems like it is). if afterlife were a big reason, why wouldn't muslims have always committed suicide attacks on a frequent basis? what about those who commit suicide attacks without afterlife being a factor? etc. that's why i'm asking how much of an impact does religion/afterlife really have, to an extent that it creates something unique that should be condemned.

technology wasn't there to allow suicide bombing before the mid-20th century.  Blowing yourself up with barrels of black powder wasn't very convenient to do tons of damages other than to yourself in the 17th-18th century.  Though Dollard des Ormeaux could tell us a bit more about that if we meet him in the afterlife

Now, suicide bombing is recent, but suicide-attacks are not.  In the case of Islam, it's been documented for some sects since the middle ages, and there were specific references to the after-life, namely that paradise with so many virgins.
In the case of Christians, I'm not so sure there are exceptions to suicide being considered a sin.  Murdering for God has been totally justifiable though, despite the "Thou shall not kill" thingie.  I do not know the Jewish view on suicide, but killing for God does not seem to be a problem for Israeli hardliners, so I'm guessing they're similar to radical Christians there.

[viper37]

Because people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.

and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.

yeah, I kinda am with you on this.  Promoting atheism and forbidding religions would not push people toward science&logic by itself.  I think we go about it the wrong way.  We need to push people toward science and logic first if we aim to remove the negative influence some beliefs can have.  And we must make it clear that religion has nothing to do with public policies.

[Berkut]

forbidding religions...

I don't think anyone anywhere is advocating any such thing.

[11B4V]

What a delightful thread.

[11B4V]

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.

Looney tune for sure. No doubt a republican and a reason why this party is no good.

[Re: Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous[\quote]

Pretty broad brush there.

[Queequeg]

forbidding religions...

I don't think anyone anywhere is advocating any such thing.

Having recently spent a week in Albania, I can testify that they have, and it didn't turn out well.

[grumbler]

Given that virtually every suicide bomber had such a belief, it's not much of a stretch.

that's not proof, though. is suicide bombing by muslim radicals a fairly recent tactic? (seems like it is). if afterlife were a big reason, why wouldn't muslims have always committed suicide attacks on a frequent basis? what about those who commit suicide attacks without afterlife being a factor? etc. that's why i'm asking how much of an impact does religion/afterlife really have, to an extent that it creates something unique that should be condemned.

There's no such thing as "proof" of motivations, so arguing that something isn't "proof" is silly.  You are trying to shift the argument to attack an assertion that no one has made.  No one says that belief in an afterlife causes people to become suicide bombers.  The argument is that it facilitates people becoming suicide bombers.

[grumbler]

and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.

Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.

[frunk]

There's no anti-vacciners in Congress? 

Not that I am aware of, and they don't seem to be having much success formulating any policy that matters.

How about truthers of various flavors?

Same. If they are there, they don't seem to really matter in any practical sense.

  Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.

There are certainly a lot of problems that need targeting, and of course not all of them are driven by religion. That doesn't speak to my point though - what DOES speak to my point is the basic religious idea that there is a final authority out there who takes an active role in human affairs. That means that no matter what, things can't get TOO bad, because God can always fix it.

Are the super rich getting more and more super rich? Sure. Probably because god wants it that way.

Anti-Vaccine Hearing
Benghazi hearings
Climate Change hearings where they invite the one climate scientist who doesn't think it is happening

Yes, religion is a part of the problem, but the ridiculous hot air that Congress generates about issues generally isn't motivated primarily by religion.  It's motivated by a desire to score political points or to push personal agendas.  Most of the climate change deniers in Congress aren't Inhofe and don't have a religious reason for their head in the sand approach.

[Malthus]

and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.

Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.

Lots of Palestinian groups use suicide bombings - some are expressly religious, and some are not. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, and it has used the tactic.

The PFLP in which Habbash secured his control defined its ideology as revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. Habbash has said that a future state of Palestine would have Marxist-Leninist principles, and that the PFLP would be the leader of the revolution. Habbash supported the view that a revolution must eventually occur throughout the Arab world; for example, he said that after Palestine's liberation (a process he said will take from 20 to 30 years), not only will Palestine be free of Zionism, but Lebanon and Jordan will be free of "reaction" and Syria and Iraq of their petit bourgeoisie.

The PFLP stepped up its operational activity during the Second Intifada. This was highlighted by at least two suicide bombings since 2003, multiple joint operations with other Palestinian terrorist groups, and the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi in 2001, to avenge Israel's killing of the PFLP Secretary General earlier that year. In 2008 and 2009, the PFLP was involved in several rocket attacks launched primarily from Gaza against Israel, and claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza, including a December 2009 ambush of Israeli soldiers in central Gaza. The PLFP claimed responsibility for numerous mortar and rocket attacks fired from Gaza into Israel in 2010, as well as an attack on a group of Israeli citizens. In October 2011, the PFLP claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that killed one civilian in Ashqelon.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/pflp.htm

Seems to me that this group has a totally different ideology (Marxism, as opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism), yet uses the same tactics. So there is at least some proof that having a religious ideology does not dictate tactics.

Which makes a certain amount of sense - dying for a cause isn't something unique to religious folks, and certainly murderous cruelty isn't either.

[Berkut]

I suspect 100% of PFLP suicide bombers think they are going to paradise/virgins/etc.

[Malthus]

I suspect 100% of PFLP suicide bombers think they are going to paradise/virgins/etc.

If you can't trust a Marxist revolutionary to be motivated by something other than religion, who can you trust? Sneaky devils, those Marxists. I guess we can call them ... no true Marxists.  They sure as hell aren't Scotsmen, given that they are from the middle east and all.

The PFLP expressly defines itself, and is described by others, as a "secular Marxist" organization, and often explicitly denies a "religious" motivation for its attacks - evenh when killing people in a Synagogue. I have no particular reason to disbelieve them, as I don't understand what they have to gain from denying they are religious - in a population where religion is quite popular.

http://www.ibtimes.com/jerusalem-synagogue-attack-motivation-was-not-religion-revenge-1948-massacre-says-1725894