Most dangerous religion for the future of the world

[britboynz 0]

I voted 'Other'. To me, all religions are dangerous. IMHO there is no god (note lowercase g there), we are just living on a rock that just so happens to be the correct distance from a star to support life without frying or freezing it.

There is NO god. we are born, we grow old, we die. Accept it.

'Humans *need* to believe in something' - a quote from my father. I'm inclined to agree.

Russ

[JackC 0]

Quote

Thus can an argument be made that atheism is indeed a religion...albeit without a diety head. It is a core set of beliefs (which cannot be proved, as deity cannot be proved) that deity does not exist, and which must then be taken on faith.

If you consider religion to be any strongly held system of beliefs which you seem to be doing, almost anything fits the definition. For example, if you sincerely believed that bombing Iraq back to the stone age was a good thing to do then your religion could be described as lets-bomb-iraqism.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deity. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not the same as believing it to be false. Atheism is not a religion and it always amazes me why people try to define it as such.

On the subject of proof, it may not be possible to prove conclusively that no God exists anywhere, but it is possible to prove that a God with certian strict attributes does not exist in the same way that a square circle cannot exist. In my opinion, the omnimax judeo-christian-islamic god is incoherent and a disbelief in such a god is justified and requires no faith in the same way that disbelieveing in square circles requires no faith. In fact, to place faith in something in the face of all reason, despite evidence to the contrary; is the very definition of a delusion.

In my opinion, any unshakable belief that has no basis in reality and significantly affects the decisions you make is extremely dangerous.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

At the present time, the most dangerous thing is the traditions around the world. There are repressive cultures (some claiming the right through religion) and downright sick shit going on in some places like Africa. Once that has been addressed, you can talk about religion being dangerous. Until then, I don't think religion is a problem.

Are you saying let's clean up the more egregious stuff before we clean up the less egregious stuff - religion? It can all be coercive and dangerous, but to ignore some of the less dangerous but still dangerous stuff is "dangerous."

When I read that I think of people saying, "You think we have lost freedoms? Look at China." Ok, the US's loss of freedoms suck, but do we have to wait until we are China before we raise the flag?

Religios isn't a problem for you because you appear to be a Christian and the trend of teh country is going that way, so congratulations, but look at it objectiveley and you will see the other side.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I think the most dangerous would be any that requires faith and leaves no place for logic or reason.

Right, or choice.


Remember, Christianisty is unconditional - believe or you will burn in hell's fire for all of eternity.... wait, isn't that a condition?

[Michele 1]

I see your point, Jack. I don't agree.

I do think that any fervently held position based on deity's existence or non-existence is, in fact, a set of beliefs.

Quote

Atheism is not a religion and it always amazes me why people try to define it as such. Are theists so desparate to drag atheists down to their level, that they must redefine the English language to do it?

It equally always amazes me that people refuse to see that atheism is a religion, but you won't find me denegrating those who disagree with me simply upon that basis. To term something as "drag atheists down to their level" does not respect others' opinions and beliefs, and superior attitude is adequately reflected there. Further, I did not "redefine" the english language; I went to a well recognized source, pulled (and quoted/sourced) the definition, and presented it. That is not "desperate," it is simply supporting a thought during a discussion from a well-known and trusted source. If that is not an acceptable method of supporting a thought, then pray tell what is?

Quote

In my opinion, the omnimax judeo-christian-islamic god is incoherent and a disbelief in such a god is justified and requires no faith in the same way that disbelieveing in square circles requires no faith.

Please note in my post I did not refer to the "judeo-christian-islamic" god; rather, I in fact stayed far away from those parameters, and instead discussed deity.

Quote

In my opinion, religion is a form of chronic delusional psychosis and any unshakable belief that has no basis in reality and significantly affects the decisions you make is extremely dangerous.

Your opinion, and you're completely welcome to it. I disagree, yet I shall refrain from refering to your dogmatically held position as desperate and delusionally psychotic.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JackC 0]

Quote

I do think that any fervently held position based on deity's existence or non-existence is, in fact, a set of beliefs.

I agree that atheism is a belief, but it does not fit the definition of a religion.

Quote

It equally always amazes me that people refuse to see that atheism is a religion,

That's because it does not fit the definition of a religion.

Quote

Further, I did not "redefine" the english language; I went to a well recognized source, pulled (and quoted/sourced) the definition, and presented it.

Then went on to equate disbelief in a proposition with a belief that the proposition is false. This does not necessarily follow. You suggested that atheism is a religion, the definition of which it most certainly does not fit. This is an attempt to redefine the word religion so that atheism (a - without, theism - belief in god) can be described as a religion (a belief in god).

Quote

Please note in my post I did not refer to the "judeo-christian-islamic" god; rather, I in fact stayed far away from those parameters, and instead discussed deity.

Noted. The point that disbelief in incohent entities is justified, is still valid.

Quote

Your opinion, and you're completely welcome to it. I disagree, yet I shall refrain from refering to your dogmatically held position as desperate and delusionally psychotic.

Fair point, I appologise and will remove the statement.

[FallRate 0]

You left out the "Church of Scientology" and "Amway".

FallRate

[SpeedRacer 1]

not even gonna touch this poll. Religions are not dangerous.

it ain't the flag, it's the fuckstick waving it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[tbrown 26]

People can say what they want about Christianity, and some of it is true, some of the time. It has it's dangerous tendencies that need to be kept on a leash.

But who's religion has jihad, or "holy war" enshrined as an article of faith ? Whose religion punishes their women if they've been raped ? And who's been flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, or parking car bombs all over the landscape.

I'll give you a clue, it ain't the Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Zoroastrians, Pagans, Unitarians, Sufis, Jains, or even the fuckin' Satanists. I'll let the discerning reader figure it out for him/herself, but these people have been at war with us ever since their founding in the 6th Century AD. And now they want Spain back - and I'm not making that up either.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Travman 6]

I don't think any religion is inherently dangerous, its just how people choose to express themselves that causes bloodshed.

[Michele 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Defining_.22religion.22

Quote

I agree that atheism is a belief, but it does not fit the definition of a religion.

I am not sure what your disagreement consists of. If you include the existence of a deity as the basis of religion, or in other words if there is no deity, there is no religion, then you're in direct contradiction of some basic definitions of the word. While the most common usage of the word is in regards to a theistic belief, it is by no means the only definition of the word. And as I've applied it and understood it for years, the term, in the broadest sense, addresses a system of beliefs upon which you live your life. Therefore, athiesm is indeed a religion, when understanding a broader perspective and scope of the terms, lifestyles, and adherents.

Quote

Then went on to equate disbelief in a proposition with a belief that the proposition is false. This does not necessarily follow. You suggested that atheism is a religion, the definition of which it most certainly does not fit. This is an attempt to redefine the word religion so that atheism (a - without, theism - belief in god) can be described as a religion (a belief in god).

Interesting. Your placing of - and insistence of - the term "god" (however one views that term) into a definition which does not have it as such exclusively creates a different definition than what I was using. I would question that, but then you'd think I was accusing you of redefining the english language.

Again, I see your point; I disagree with it, and believe that perhaps you have a bad reaction to the term "religion" and thus refuse to see it in the broad application used. Which is, btw, just fine...and something I think is a normal reaction.

Frankly, it's all good, whether you believe in a deity, godhead, set of rules, evidence, or what have you. I am not going to prove the existence of my beliefs to you, and you cannot prove the parameters of your beliefs to me.

The truth of the matter is no-one knows, not for sure and certain. No one knows what happens after we die. And because that's a point wherein additional discussion is moot, we are left with our own opinions, thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

Quote

Fair point, I appologise and will remove the statement.

Apology accepted, however it was not sought nor required. There is no way you could have meant it terribly personally, as you don't know me, don't know my thoughts and beliefs...therefore, I saw that more as an indication of who you are, how you think, and what your opinions are. It's all good, and apology accepted as stated, but it was not necessary.

Back to the topic at hand...I agree, extremists of any religion are the dangerous ones...from Christianity to Islamic to Buddhists to Athiests....mostly, I think the Agnostics are the ones that have the least propensity towards something, as their position is one of "not knowing" and when one is "not knowing" then there is room to move easily through the world. When one however holds a dogmatic approach to whatever their religion, there is danger that they may behave in a manner detrimental to others...and it is those folks who present the most danger.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you include the existence of a deity as the basis of religion, or in other words if there is no deity, there is no religion, then you're in direct contradiction of some basic definitions of the word.

Nope. The M-W definition you posted:

Main Entry: re·li·gion

1 a : the state of a religious

See religious below.

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Contains the word god.

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

See religious below

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

See religious below

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity :CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Archaic, nebulous and irrelevant.

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Contains the word faith, which is exactly the thing that atheists do not employ.

So we get on to the word religious

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Contains the word deity, another word for god.

2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

Contains the word religious. Circular definition and therefore meaningless.

3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Faith again.

So which ever way you look at it, the word religion is defined either in terms of itself, faith or in terms of god/deity. If you remove the definitions containing god, the definitions only ever refer to themselves, which is circular and therefore useless, or faith which is not relevant since atheists do not employ faith.

Quote

And as I've applied it and understood it for years, the term, in the broadest sense, addresses a system of beliefs upon which you live your life.

By this definition, just about any belief is a religion. Conservative Republicanism is a religion, Star-Trekism is a religion, alcoholism is a religion, Skydivism is a religion, loch-ness-monsterism is a religion. This definition is so wide, it literaly covers anything and is therefore useless. It also doesn't fit the definition of the word religion.

Quote

Therefore, athiesm is indeed a religion, when understanding a broader perspective and scope of the terms, lifestyles, and adherents.

So is second-amendmentism, pornographism and purple-invisible-asteroidism.

Quote

Interesting. Your placing of - and insistence of - the term "god" (however one views that term) into a definition which does not have it

Read the definition again. It either refers to itself (useless), faith (irrelevant) or god. The word god definately does appear in the definition of the word religion. You know this already.

Quote

Back to the topic at hand...I agree, extremists of any religion are the dangerous ones...from Christianity to Islamic to Buddhists to Athiests...

What is an extreme atheist? Is it someone who doesn't believe is god A LOT! Isn't that a bit like saying she's a little bit pregnant? You lost me there.

Quote

I think the Agnostics are the ones that have the least propensity towards something, as their position is one of "not knowing" and when one is "not knowing" then there is room to move easily through the world. When one however holds a dogmatic approach to whatever their religion, there is danger that they may behave in a manner detrimental to others...and it is those folks who present the most danger.

So would I be correct in assuming that you must be agnostic then? Surely an agnostic who has no knowledge of god, wouldn't place any faith in the god of which they have no knowledge and would therefore be atheistic towards this god?

In your opinion, is agnosticism also a religion?

[Antidote 0]

Michele, I think atheists can be divided in two groups - strong and weak. The strong atheists assert that there is no god. A definitite statement that's hard to prove - ergo a bit like faith.

The majority of atheists are weak atheists. They lack any belief towards any deity. There is nothing to it - no combined shared set of bleiefs a la Evil Atheist Conspiracy group. The only thing these people are sure to have in common is a lack of belief. As such, I'd dare say that beyond all the other dogmatic issues, this disqualifies them as belonging to a religion.

Your point is valid, however it applies only to a minority of atheists (i.e those who claim that gods do not, for ceertain, exist). There's been lots of discussions and even polls on alt.atheism, and the overwhelming majority of atheists there simply lack belief in any deity.

Saying a lack of belief is a belief is kinda like saying bald is a hair colour :).

As far as agnosticism goes - agnostics can be both hard core Christians (or any other religious group) or hard core atheists.

agnosticism
n 1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"


So, it's about whether gods existence can be proved or not. Not about whether it exists or not. That's the way I've read it, anyway.

I don't find that a lack of religious beliefs is dangerous for the world overall. Stalin, for instance, did not do what he did because of lack of religious beliefs. He did it because he was powerhungry and because he could. He was NOT motivated by lack of belief, although said lack of belief could have resulted in him not fearing any afterlife consequences of his acts.

Me, I'd vote for the "whoever has more active nutters ready toact on stupid stories", but that option isn't available.

About gods and spirituality and whatnot - I dunno. If there is something, I'll find out when I die for sure. If there isn't, well, can't find that out when I'm dead, so then I'll never know.

[sabr190 0]

Doh!

I can't believe I miss quoted that

"The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one" - rehmwa

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Doh!

I can't believe I miss quoted that

Which is essentially utilitrianism, a major component of Marxist Communism. American Democracy and spirit of freedom place the emphasis on the rights of the individual, or should we say it used to, so the rights of the whole will be automatically taken care of.

[Balls 0]

I voted for Islam, but I actually think that any extreemist group is the mot dangerous. Wether it is islam, christianity, or anything else.

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[mr2mk1g 10]

I figure the poll results might well be quite accurate - the biggest danger to the future at the moment could just be the brewing conflict between Christians and Muslims.

[Steel 0]

Quote

People can say what they want about Christianity, and some of it is true, some of the time. It has it's dangerous tendencies that need to be kept on a leash.

But who's religion has jihad, or "holy war" enshrined as an article of faith ? Whose religion punishes their women if they've been raped ? And who's been flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, or parking car bombs all over the landscape.

I'll give you a clue, it ain't the Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Zoroastrians, Pagans, Unitarians, Sufis, Jains, or even the fuckin' Satanists. I'll let the discerning reader figure it out for him/herself, but these people have been at war with us ever since their founding in the 6th Century AD. And now they want Spain back - and I'm not making that up either.

Thank you for stating the extremely obvious facts that we all know. I think this poll is as mind numbing as if I was to start a poll that said in which of the following countries are people most likely to speak Spanish: India, Austria, Spain, Sweden or Canada. I mean even the Muslims know it themselves. I remember when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, the one time that a mass killing could not be point directly to that religion, a Muslim freind of mine at the time said, "I don't like this, its wierd that such an act has nothing to do with my people".

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

It has it's dangerous tendencies that need to be kept on a leash.

I think that applies to any religion. IMHO any form of extremism and fanaticism is dangerous. Now throw in any religion into that mix and you get some pretty evil results. There are some pretty whicked christians out there who kill because they think they are doing gods work. Look at the ones who take out OBGYNs (I dont want to start debating abortion please), look at the Aryan Nation or other such nut jobs. Many of them preach Christian values and have no problems strapping a human being to a truck and drive around till all thats left is a pile of flesh.

[Muenkel 0]

Don't you think extremism (I'm talking the violent ones) in any religion has a lot more to do with mental illness than the religion itself?

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Don't you think extremism (I'm talking the violent ones) in any religion has a lot more to do with mental illness than the religion itself?

Chris

Damn good point. Yes, I would have to agree violent religious extermism has some factors of mental illness to it. Then IMO religion becomes an excuse to act out, giving you a target to focus on. Damn now you got me thinking on Monday morning.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Don't you think extremism (I'm talking the violent ones) in any religion has a lot more to do with mental illness than the religion itself?

not really. Religion is the most common breeding ground for extremism, it provides a social support system, an environment attractive to those who are often fundamentally unstable on their own, and offers a support structure that, so long as they remain inside the belief system, encourages it’s followers to define themselves solely through their religion, their 'privileged relationship' with the divine, and supposedly assured place in the universe.

This leads to a narrow minded, religious population who cannot imagine, much less comprehend that their premade, heavily indoctrinated belief might ever be incorrect, uncertain or flawed in any manner, as it would mean their world view is equally incorrect, uncertain and flawed.

Even simple questioning can raise the fear that everything they ‘know’ could be wrong and so they violently, fanatically retreat into the dogma that justifies their comfort zone, often becoming abusive, illogical and intolerant when pressed with questions unanswerable by the faith they have accepted.) Anything less would leave them not only with their inherent instability, but also with the knowledge that everything they have been taught for YEARS must also be called into question pushing them even farther over the edge of extremism…

Religion might not be the source of extremist views, but it breeds and encourages more of them, more often than any other social phenomena

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

the radical Christian fundamentalists who believe in the book of Revelations and would like nothing more than to see Armageddon happen in their life times

Could you please give us some recent examples of such people causing trouble/mayhem/chaos/anarchy via terror and violence?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Could you please give us some recent examples of such people causing trouble/mayhem/chaos/anarchy via terror and violence?

Eric Rudolph can take a few of these. How about the Freemen, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones? Okay those last three were kind of extreme. But they all had Christian backgrounds. Oh and as far as exploitation is concerned can we speak of Baker and his lovely wife Tammy Fay? To name just a few corrupt Christian leaders. Shit Tammy Fay's face alone is enough to terrorize a child let alone having to listen to the rhetoric. How about that Catholic Bishop from Boston who's on the hot seat for his tolerance towards his sexually abusive Priests? Is child molestation not a form of trouble, mayhem, chaos and yes even terrorism? There's many more ... but maybe you get the picture by now? Nah ... not you.

Hey the average Christian isn't to be feared. But one only needs to look at the TV to see Christian rhetoric all over the place, and in all forms. And many of them are preaching revelations. Of course I don't watch Al-jeezera. And I'm sure if I did (and if I understood arabic), I'd be disguisted at their garbage as well.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[TheAnvil 0]

Quite an interesting flow of logic you have there, tying all of those folks together by their faith and attributing their actions to that faith. Those Branch Davidians in Waco sure caused a lot of trouble and terror didn't they?

By your same logic, I present the following:

Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Theodore Kaczynski - none of them devout Christians. Ken Lay, AIG's Mr. Greenberg, and the beloved Mr. Soros of the left - all involved in corporate scandals. None of them devout Christians.

By your same logic, I can attribute the actions of all of the above to their lack of faith. Make a lot of sense? After all, the Christian religion tends to preach the antithesis of the actions taken by all of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Had they been devout Christians, they would have been repeatedly influenced to act in the opposite manner than which they actually did.

To answer my own rhetorical question - it doesn't, but it makes far more sense than the argument you present to place Christianity in a bad light. Human kind, far from being infallible from a moral perspective, has had deviants since recorded history began. It will have them when it ends, and they will be from all faiths and walks of life.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!