Prime examples of the dangerous costs of religion:

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Truth is Atheists seek truth, evidence, facts, and base their morals on logic. Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering, not necessarily based on religious dogma but on logic. Atheists do not fear that people will find hope, charity, peace in believing, but the opposite that such beliefs in fact cause despair, less charity, less peace.

Thank you!...exactly my sentiments

[Valerie]

I do abhor organized religion with a passion, but I don't try and convert or pre-judge someone solely based on their religious views....

I am an atheist, yes there are a lot of myths about us, and I find myself getting quite frustrated at times because I get a lot of shit from some religious people, but at the same time I recognize that some religious people get the same shit from over the top atheists...

My feelings on the matter: Believe what you want to believe because that is YOUR right, and just because you may see things different than another does not make them or you any better/worse. I have some great friends, some which are catholic, protestant, muslim, etc... all wonderful people, and I don't let our differences of religious opinions get in the way of our friendships or my love for them....just my .02

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dayum! and I thought I was posting on a literate board. Who mentioned Christianity? Who mentioned animism? The OP's post claimed all religion should be ended. My point is that Atheism is merely another religion. As such, it is no more verifiable than the extant religions of today or the extinct religions of the past. Plus, the OP then goes on to disassociate atheism from some of history’s most notable practitioners of atheism (@ Bebe Le Strange - BTW, you left out Karl Marx and Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu and some others. Care to enumerate how many have died or have been killed because of Marx’s atheistic beliefs?)

@ WTF You brought in the animist Mayans, and you did so in such a way as to suggest that they were happy in their beliefs. My point exactly. Thank you for your contribution to my argument.

To quote a friend on this very statement:

"
Are there any deaths that can be directly attributed to atheism?
As in “Kill them in the name of no-god?”
There are plenty of deaths involving a monomaniac protecting a dictatorial political power base by marginalizing and punishing or executing a clear subset of populations, but I don’t know that those can be directly attributed to death by atheism. Where there are plenty of examples of deaths that can be directly attributed to clashes between different religions, or even different factions of the same religion.


As an example:
Many have called Stalin an atheist and tried to connect deaths related to his monomaniacal regime to atheism, but he wasn’t really killing in the name of ‘no faith’ he was killing in the name of ‘protect my powerbase by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence”.
Much the same could be said for many of the other violent dictators who are often propped up as killing in the name of atheism, when they were really killing in the name of ‘protecting my powerbase’."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

To quote a friend on this very statement:

"
Are there any deaths that can be directly attributed to atheism?
As in “Kill them in the name of no-god?”
There are plenty of deaths involving a monomaniac protecting a dictatorial political power base by marginalizing and punishing or executing a clear subset of populations, but I don’t know that those can be directly attributed to death by atheism. Where there are plenty of examples of deaths that can be directly attributed to clashes between different religions, or even different factions of the same religion.


As an example:
Many have called Stalin an atheist and tried to connect deaths related to his monomaniacal regime to atheism, but he wasn’t really killing in the name of ‘no faith’ he was killing in the name of ‘protect my powerbase by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence”.
Much the same could be said for many of the other violent dictators who are often propped up as killing in the name of atheism, when they were really killing in the name of ‘protecting my powerbase’."

Equivocation! Equivocation! And why did the Protestants princes of Germany make war against the Pope’s legions, or why did Kings of France send armies against the Huguenots? I’ll give you hint—they killed “in the name of ‘protect my powerbase by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence.’” How can you expect to use one argument to declaim one set of autocrats then have the audacity to claim it doesn’t apply to another set of autocrats? Equivocation! Equivocation!

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Valerie

I do abhor organized religion with a passion, but I don't try and convert or pre-judge someone solely based on their religious views....

I am an atheist, yes there are a lot of myths about us, and I find myself getting quite frustrated at times because I get a lot of shit from some religious people, but at the same time I recognize that some religious people get the same shit from over the top atheists...

My feelings on the matter: Believe what you want to believe because that is YOUR right, and just because you may see things different than another does not make them or you any better/worse. I have some great friends, some which are catholic, protestant, muslim, etc... all wonderful people, and I don't let our differences of religious opinions get in the way of our friendships or my love for them....just my .02

The only problem with that is, religion currently shapes a lot of our foreign policies, and is used to create laws that are harmful, and is the major factor in political discourse, to our public policy, and to our reputation in the world. You as an atheist should be very concerned it is not simply "live and let live" when it comes to religions.

Again quoting my favorite author on what you are describing:

The problem with moderate religion:



Whenever nonbelievers like myself criticize Christians for believing in the imminent return of Christ, or Muslims for believing in martyrdom, religious moderates declare that we have caricatured Christianity and Islam, taken "extremists" to be representative of these "great" religions, or otherwise overlooked a shimmering ocean of nuance. We are invariably told that a mature understanding of scripture renders faith perfectly compatible with reason, and that our attacks upon religion are, therefore, "simplistic", "dogmatic", or even "fundamentalist".

But there are several problems with such a defense of religion. First, many moderates (and even some secularists) assume that religious "extremism" is rare and therefore not all that consequential. But religious extremism is not rare, and it is hugely consequential. The United States is now a nation of 300 million souls, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet 240 million of these souls apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers. This hankering for a denominational, spiritual oblivion is extreme in almost every sense--it is extremely silly, extremely dangerous, extremely worthy of denigration--but it is not extreme in the sense of being rare. Of course, moderates may wonder whether as many people believe such things as say they do. In fact, many atheists are confident that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually think in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most Americans reliably claim to believe the preposterous, and these claims themselves have done genuine harm to our political discourse, to our public policy, and to our reputation in the world.

Religious moderates also tend to imagine that there is some bright line of separation between extremist and moderate religion. But there isn't. Scripture itself remains a perpetual engine of extremism: because, while He may be many things, the God of the Bible and the Qur'an is not a moderate. Reading scripture more closely, one does not find reasons to be a religious moderate; one finds reasons to be a proper religious lunatic--to fear the fires of hell, to despise nonbelievers, to persecute homo-sexuals, ect. Of course, anyone can cherry -pick scripture and find reasons to love his neighbor and to turn the other cheek. But the more fully a person grants credence to these books, the more he will be convinced that infidels, heretics, and apostates deserve to be smashed to atoms in God's loving machinery of justice.

Religious moderates invariably claim to be more "sophisticated" than religious fundamentalists (and atheists). But how does one become a sophisticated believer? By acknowledging just how dubious many of the claims of scripture are, and thereafter reading it selectively, bowdlerizing it if need be, and allowing its assertions about reality to be continually trumped by fresh insights--scientific ("you mean the world isn't 6,000 years old? Okay".), medical ("I should take my daughter to a neurologist and not to an exorcist? Seems reasonable..."), and moral ("I can't beat my slaves? I can't even keep slaves? Hmmm..."). There is a pattern here, and it is undeniable. Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit that the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings?

Another problem with religious moderation is that it represents precisely the sort of thinking that will prevent a rational and nondenominational spirituality from ever emerging in our world. Whatever is true about us, spiritually and ethically, must be discoverable now. Consequently, it makes no sense at all to have one's spiritual life pegged to rumors of ancient miracles. What we need is a discourse about ethics and spiritual experience that is as unconstrained by ancient ignorance as the discourse of science already is. Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as "Japanese" as opposed to "French" science; we don't speak of "Hindu biology" and "Jewish chemistry". Imagine a world in which we could have a truly honest and open-ended conversation about our place in the universe and about the possibilities of deepening our self-understanding, ethical wisdom, and compassion. By living as if some measure of sectarian superstition were essential for human happiness, religious moderates prevent such a conversation from ever taking shape.

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

The only problem with that is, religion currently shapes a lot of our foreign policies, and is used to create laws that are harmful, and is the major factor in political discourse, to our public policy, and to our reputation in the world. You as an atheist should be very concerned it is not simply "live and let live" when it comes to religions.

Again quoting my favorite author on what you are describing:

The problem with moderate religion:

I agree that religion and politics should be separate, and I agree with your first sentence, but I am not an extremist. Do I think it's ridiculous that religion shapes a lot of foreign policies?...Of course, however I just don't see that drastically changing unfortunately....

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Valerie

I agree that religion and politics should be separate, and I agree with your first sentence, but I am not an extremist. Do I think it's ridiculous that religion shapes a lot of foreign policies?...Of course, however I just don't see that drastically changing unfortunately....

It's changing every day, and it starts with an open dialogue with these people. That is why I am such a huge fan of Sam Harris and a proud member of his http://www.project-reason.org/

I am also a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. Both Sam Harris and Dawkins as well as many others hold public speaking events on this subject, and educating people, opening up conversations with people on the harm of religions.

That is in part why I started these discussions, if anything to do my part. You shouldn't be afraid to express your concerns and beliefs with your friends who are believers. If they really are your friend they will listen to what you have to say, and take into consideration the things you are saying, without shutting you off.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Equivocation! Equivocation! And why did the Protestants princes of Germany make war against the Pope’s legions, or why did Kings of France send armies against the Huguenots? I’ll give you hint—they killed “in the name of ‘protect my powerbase by subjugation of the masses through intimidation, fear and violence.’” How can you expect to use one argument to declaim one set of autocrats then have the audacity to claim it doesn’t apply to another set of autocrats? Equivocation! Equivocation!

Historically there have been very few actual atheists. In it’s current state, atheism is a more modern phenomenon, chiefly becoming more prominent after the Enlightenment. So, since theists have held the vast market share for most of history, statistically you would expect more theists to be responsible for deaths than atheists.
While my friend is right about Stalin & Co, that they didn’t go around killing in the name of no-god, their lack of faith (in their particular situation) probably did remove some inhibitions about taking human life. If we are no different than animals, we can be euthanized when it is convenient. So Stalin, an atheist, is one of the greatest mass-murderers ever. But there have also been plenty of theist mass-murderers, so it’s really just a human trait dressed up in different fashions. Again, overall, because of the relative numbers, theists are undoubtedly responsible for more deaths than atheists.

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

It's changing every day, and it starts with an open dialogue with these people. That is why I am such a huge fan of Sam Harris and a proud member of his http://www.project-reason.org/

I am also a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. Both Sam Harris and Dawkins as well as many others hold public speaking events on this subject, and educating people, opening up conversations with people on the harm of religions.

That is in part why I started these discussions, if anything to do my part. You shouldn't be afraid to express your concerns and beliefs with your friends who are believers. If they really are your friend they will listen to what you have to say, and take into consideration the things you are saying, without shutting you off.

I am a huge fan of Dawkins as well, ( I recommended "The God Delusion" in another thread). I never said I was afraid to express my beliefs with my friends??...I'm a very blunt person lol, my friends know exactly where I stand, I do talk to them about how I feel, and they do the same. I just don't try and shove my beliefs down someones throat, no one responds well to that. I'm not afraid to bring up the fact that I'm atheist to anyone, I enjoy having debates with others about the subject, but I care not for drama, and as I stated earlier I'm not an extremist...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

Agreed

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, sorta, manipulated science is not science.

Is all of life nothing more than a power grab? Yes, I agree with that, if that is your point.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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.

.

Disagree.

Science always is looking for holes in any theory. They believe in something as long as it works, if something comes along and disproves it, they jump on board that bandwagon. They are on a quest for truth , not fairy tales. Really seriously, Do you think the world was made in seven days 10,000 years ago?

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

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...

A little alter boy humor...you jealous of my meteoric alter boy status?..

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

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.

Awwww yes, I am an addict for the truth, you are addicted to being right. Because of that personality difference we will rarely see eye to eye.

I will say that there is something admirable about you Dogmatic folks tenacity in spite of all reason/logic.

You believe a cow can jump over the moon and anyone that disputes it must prove the cow can't or be declared a utterly cantankerous old coot.

The problem with folks like you and Jenny MaCarthy is that you can do much damage to an unsuspecting world that has limited knowledge of just what real science actually is. Sad really.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Valerie

I enjoy having debates with others about the subject, but I care not for drama, and as I stated earlier I'm not an extremist...

Except when it comes to reviews

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by WTF

Except when it comes to reviews

Okay shall I edit my statement?...."I care not for drama, EXCEPT when it comes to my issues on reviews with WTF."...Better?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Valerie

Okay shall I edit my statement?...."I care not for drama, EXCEPT when it comes to my issues on reviews with WTF."...Better?

Make-up drama is the best drama ever!

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by WTF

Make-up drama is the best drama ever!

Ok...Now stop hijacking the thread WTF and get back on topic!

[oden]

Just a thought: I have always hoped there was an entity smarter than me guiding this universe; but, there are a lot of people that think they are the smartest entity ever. I just "pray" that all those smarter than all of us other people don't screw up a moral compass that seems to have evolved and been with us as we have become more civilized.