Prime examples of the dangerous costs of religion:

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Heck, Darwinism was quite nicely twisted into Social Darwinism, and when combined with industrialism was the death of millions and nearly the annihilation of a people - a people despised for their religious beliefs and culture.

One is a SCIENCE Lauren, I thought we had went over the difference in another thread. You may need to go back and re-read to understand the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[30] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[31] In the last years the argument has increasingly been taken up by opponents of evolutionary theory. The creationist ministry Answers in Genesis is especially known for some of these claims.[32][33] Intelligent design supporters have promoted this position as well.
These claims are widely criticized within the academic community. The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[26]
Weickart himself writes in his book "From Darwin to Hitler": "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview".
Similar criticisms are sometimes applied (or misapplied) to other political or scientific theories that resemble social Darwinism, for example criticisms leveled at evolutionary psychology. For example, a critical reviewer of Weikart's book writes that "(h)is historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced."[37]

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But if you remove religion, you are probably also removing the only tool most people have to cope with violence, oppression and war, and the purveyors of death, fear, chaos, power and destruction.

That is rather self serving....I am good , remove me and there is no other good in the world.

There are good people that are not religious. Damn.

That said, I am not one that thinks religion is bad nor should it be removed.

I think in scientific terms....it has its place. That place is not in a science class.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

You know the very word "religion" to an atheist system is upsetting if that atheist is someone who is intolerant. Even if it isn't a religion, it is a belief. A belief that God does not exist.

Science is not Dogmatic.....Religion is.

You keep confusing the two. If you could ever grasp the meaning of the below article you then could understand that your stance is the defination of Dogma

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I found this article interesting in light of your comments, and thought I would share:

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: anyone who claims that science is dogmatic is completely and totally ignorant.

First, what does dogma mean? Most definitions specifically state it’s a religious belief, but the ones that don’t say something to the effect of, “a belief that is held to be unquestionably true”, and they often throw in some language about lack of evidence for the belief.

Now, what is science? This definition is among the best I’ve ever seen: “Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.” Throw in a reference to methodological naturalism and it’s perfect.

Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, nondogmatic. Right off the bat the claims of dogmatism are false.

One of the central tenets of science is that nothing is ever truly proven. Every scientific theory can be overthrown if evidence is provided to invalidate it. Examples of this happening are too numerous to count, the classic one is Einstein’s General Relativity overthrowing Newton’s Law of Gravitation, but there are plenty more.

Science is based only on evidence and logical interpretation of that evidence. Hypotheses are posited, tested, make predictions, those are tested, and if the hypothesis passes the scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be accepted. At least until some new evidence challenges it, when the process begins again. It is not dogma.

Many scientists frequently point out that if someone came up with evidence that challenged an existing theory (such as Evolution or the Standard Model) and came up with a suitable theory to explain it, they’d be a hero. They’d be showered in awards and praise, and go down as one of The Greats. That’s exactly what Einstein and Darwin did, and they’re remembered as two of the greatest in their fields. How can science be called dogmatic when its greatest rewards are given to people who challenge the accepted theories?

The same claims of dogmatism are often applied to atheism as well. They are, at least for me, equally untrue. Atheism is (for most people) about the lack of evidence for any kind of deity. If someone showed me irrefutable proof that god (any god) actually exists, then I’d “believe” in it, the same way I “believe” in science. However, my confidence that this won’t happen is such that I feel perfectly secure claiming that god (any god) does not exist. Many people find this contradictory, saying that agnosticism is the only logical stance on the issue. To that I can only reply with a Richard Dawkins quote, “I’m agnostic about God the same way I’m agnostic about fairies.” God or gods should be held to the same standards as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and every other statement about the world: namely, show me the evidence, and I’ll believe it.

Neither science nor atheism is dogmatic, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong, and most likely don’t truly understand science or atheism. Which is too bad, because knowledge is infinitely more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, no matter how comforting it may be.
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/09/science-is-not-dogmatic.html

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

They are attempting to convert someone to their own belief - it is the active attempt to change someones belief systems and culture to match your own under the belief that yours is superior and the only correct way to think, that is disrespectful and dangerous.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I would also go as far as to suggest, that there are those who used religion to kill people, had no belief in God at all, merely wanted to manipulated the masses with a concept they found laughable. Which would be the lowest form of human being.

Philip II of Spain is an instance where a leader used religion as justification for war. However, he wasn’t being superficial. Unfortunately, he truly believed he was doing God’s work when he directed actions that led to the deaths of Protestants, Conversos and Moriscos. He truly believed it was better they die than to continue in life as heretics. On the other hand, you have leaders like Napoleon, who superficially converted to Islam, who fit your definition and use religion to enhance their political power and position.

Originally Posted by WTF

A child is Happy with the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.

Originally Posted by WTF

My point is that there isn't a lick of difference between worshipping the Sun God or the Christian God.

WTF? WTF. Have you actually read my posts? I think you are trying to argue with me just to argue with me. Read what I’ve written and tell me how it substantially differs from what you are saying here and below.

Originally Posted by WTF

I would not try and convert either....can your religion say the same?

What is my religion?

Originally Posted by WTF

That is rather self serving....I am good , remove me and there is no other good in the world.

I did write “most people” rather than “all people.” I try to avoid using absolutes because there is (almost) always an exception that breaks the rule.

Originally Posted by WTF

There are good people that are not religious. Damn.

And there are good people who are religious

Originally Posted by WTF

That said, I am not one that thinks religion is bad nor should it be removed.

We agree! Damn, the universe must be gonna end! It’s those Mayans and their calendars of doom! . . . You shouldn’t have interjected them into the argument: we are now all lost!

[London Rayne]

I think too many people including many here, confuse religion with being spiritual. A relationship is entirely different than religion. We who believe in God and Jesus Christ usually stand up for those beliefs, but don't try to cram it down someone else's throat. As I said before, you lead my example not words. It's much easier to SHOW people your God, than to try and force them to believe in the invisible. Religion is what has caused such chaos, not spiritualism...two vastly different concepts.

I know many people who don't belive in God who have more compassion than those that do...same with the reverse, so I don't think idiots or genuine people are exclusive to any one religion, or non-religion. For instance, I am non-denomination meaning no religion, but I believe in ONE God, ONE Bible, and a very simple concept of Jesus died for my sins and that being a "good person" won't get me into heaven. If that were the case, then "MY" Jesus died for nothing, because I was already good enough to get in without him.

Can I prove this? No, but I know what's in my heart and what I can discern and that makes a bigger impact than any textbook including science, ever will. People who always need facts to back up the mysterious and the remarkable seldom know when a miracle is right before their eyes. More and more things are not black in white, but shades of gray. I prefer seeing all the possible colors out there....those that won't harm me that is.

I believe in God the same way I once believed in Santa Claus...with a childlike faith that does not need scientific facts to support it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Science is not Dogmatic.....Religion is.

You argue that science is not dogmatic, but what about the human element—the scientist? Reflect for a moment . . . isn’t it often a religion’s messenger and not the message of the religion that people have trouble with?

Aristotle was an empiricist, and his findings were accepted as gospel for centuries. Today his findings are seldom accepted as valid.

The Aztecs were also empiricist. They sacrificed human beings, cut out their hearts and offered the hearts to their sun god Huitzilopochtli to insure that the sun would rise in the sky every day: and it did. Were they right? No.

And Thomas Edison wasn’t being dogmatic when he insisted that AC current was too dangerous to use in the home and that DC current was the only way to go. Who was right, Edison or Nikola Tesla?

Anything—including science—that involves human beings is fallible.

[Iaintliein]

WTF,
The word, "science" has been invoked to promote dogma as much as religion has in the last century or so. Go read some of the blogs about "global warming" and tell me it isn't promoted by dogma and religious zeal. I honestly don't know who is more arrogant; those who think the planet was created for them by an all powerful being, or those who think we are the all powerful beings who can actually control the planet.

Science is no more holy than religion. Nerds writing grant requests and sheep herders scribbling prophecy aren't that different. They write to promote their agenda.

I think it's pretty obvious from my past posts what my opinion about religion is. I've also posted in the past that my degree and profession are in the field of the physical sciences. But the world today is full of wild eyed zelots waving the flag of science to promote nothing more than political agendas, not as violent as the religious wars the OP started the thread about. . . but they could yet get there. Present company excepted, of course.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

Science is not Dogmatic.....Religion is.

You keep confusing the two. If you could ever grasp the meaning of the below article you then could understand that your stance is the defination of Dogma

When used by you WTF, in the context you use it...Science is most certainly Dogmatic.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers."

So, science is a group of believers in something, and if it is proven science than they don't diverge from the belief.

Science is a belief system. There are lots of results of things that are proven as scientific fact...but the cause of those results is always a quest.

Mixing ingredient A with ingredient B most certainly makes you "d*ck" bigger. That is a result driven thing that can be proved by matter of repetition. That's not really science. Science is the art of determining why you "d*ck" gets bigger. Scientists can postualte that it occured because some atom in "A" melded together with some atom in "B" and formed the newly formed "BD*ck atom. But it is still postulation...or a belief system.

Religion may have much less scientific evidence, but it is also a belief system.

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WTF? WTF. Have you actually read my posts? I think you are trying to argue with me just to argue with me. !

No. Not WTF! He is an Angel in human form. Seriously, didn't you just bring up a thread about God and songs WTF? You didn't strike me as the altar boy type...or maybe...

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

I think too many people including many here, confuse religion with being spiritual. A relationship is entirely different than religion. We who believe in God and Jesus Christ usually stand up for those beliefs, but don't try to cram it down someone else's throat. As I said before, you lead my example not words. It's much easier to SHOW people your God, than to try and force them to believe in the invisible. Religion is what has caused such chaos, not spiritualism...two vastly different concepts.

I know many people who don't belive in God who have more compassion than those that do...same with the reverse, so I don't think idiots or genuine people are exclusive to any one religion, or non-religion. For instance, I am non-denomination meaning no religion, but I believe in ONE God, ONE Bible, and a very simple concept of Jesus died for my sins and that being a "good person" won't get me into heaven. If that were the case, then "MY" Jesus died for nothing, because I was already good enough to get in without him.

Can I prove this? No, but I know what's in my heart and what I can discern and that makes a bigger impact than any textbook including science, ever will. People who always need facts to back up the mysterious and the remarkable seldom know when a miracle is right before their eyes. More and more things are not black in white, but shades of gray. I prefer seeing all the possible colors out there....those that won't harm me that is.

I believe in God the same way I once believed in Santa Claus...with a childlike faith that does not need scientific facts to support it.

Keep in mind you Jesus has only been on the books a little over 2000 years. Prior to that, there we're looking at maybe 20,000-100,000 years +/- of humans (not including Neanderthals, etc...) worshiping a Deity of some sort. Modern religions are just a spec on the timeline of human evolution and I'm sure if we could jump forward a thousand years, we all may be worshiping a robot.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Quote: "When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty".

Some common myths about atheism:

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.


http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harr...s06_index.html

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WTF? WTF. Have you actually read my posts? I think you are trying to argue with me just to argue with me. Read what I’ve written and tell me how it substantially differs from what you are saying here and below.

Isn't that his specialty, regardless of topic? Case point of an atheist who thrives on conflict - you don't need God to enjoy it. In fact, there is no need for cause, nor is there any concern for effect - merely luxuriating in the conflict itself. As long as you twist the meaning of words, and keep changing the topic, it can keep going. And when you've run out of words to twists and topics to change, you can start up on semantics and splitting hairs - then the the mindless arguing can continue into perpetuity. The addict gets his hit.

[Rudyard K]

@ Bebe - Are you sure you are not quoting WTF?

I have never heard one of those "common myths" expressed to me about Atheism...and I'm around spiritual folks a lot. I wonder what the obscure myths are.

Sounds to me like somebody needed to make up a bunch of stuff, so he could write about a bunch of sutff arguing against the stuff he made up.

Whew!! That's what WTF does.

[reciprocity]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Definition for religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Definition for atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

Atheist who militantly advocate that their belief system is superior to and more preferential than that of people who have different beliefs, and who further advocate that all others must change and believe as they do, place themselves on par with the people they are criticizing.

A-theism means without theism, i.e. without a belief in God.

There really shouldn't be that much of a distinction between atheists and agonistics. Atheists basically believe it is so improbable that God exists in any form constructed by organized religion that there is no real point in saying there is any God.

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by reciprocity

A-theism means without theism, i.e. without a belief in God.

There really shouldn't be that much of a distinction between atheists and agonistics. Atheists basically believe it is so improbable that God exists in any form constructed by organized religion that there is no real point in saying there is any God.

And there are some atheists who think God is important enough to encourage people to present their beliefs so that they can sit back and enjoy criticizing anything different then their own ideas and luxuriate in the sense of superiority it gives them.

Now an agnostic is someone who generally doesn't care about the topic enough to debate it - they have no opinion on God - as though it's importance didn't exist. Which would make for a real non believer.