Is God poison?

[Figleaf]

If the human race was at it's most brutal to one another in the century which marked a loosening of theistic belief, it makes it rather difficult to argue that god is poison.

The order of causation you appear to assume is backwards.

And yet here you are mocking people for their beliefs..

Would it be better to mock people for some other reason?

[M.Dancer]

I don't think people "find" their own religion, so much as it's thrown upon them.

That's very true. Or thrown-up on them.

What an arrogant, ignorant child.

[M.Dancer]

Religion may not be the cause of horror, but it's certain that it has done absolutely nothing to stop it.

Well that is a sweeping, arrogant statment to make.

Some evil has been done in religions name, for sure - but I would say that religion has done more good than bad in human history.

Yeah he's got a point...what did religion do to stop the athiest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao?

[kuzadd]

Religion may not be the cause of horror, but it's certain that it has done absolutely nothing to stop it.

Well that is a sweeping, arrogant statment to make.

Some evil has been done in religions name, for sure - but I would say that religion has done more good than bad in human history.

Yeah he's got a point...what did religion do to stop the athiest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao?

Stalin and Mao are perfect examples of abusive government, when the populace have grown to complacent and dependant on government for their 'security' . Neither government used religion to manipulate the masses, is all that can be said about either of them, wrt religion. They used the FEAR ,without the religious overtones.

[Figleaf]

... I would say that religion has done more good than bad in human history.

Good like what, for example?

Or more specifically, what good has religion done that could not have been done without religion?

[Figleaf]

Yeah he's got a point...what did religion do to stop the athiest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao?

...

For that matter, what did God do to stop them?

[M.Dancer]

... I would say that religion has done more good than bad in human history.

Good like what, for example?

Or more specifically, what good has religion done that could not have been done without religion?

Yeah I suppose one day some day, a non religionist would have eventually got around to it......wouldm have gotten around to the leper colonies, the slave trade, to the Red Cross..to the geneva conventions of warfare.....

[cybercoma]

Stalin and Mao are perfect examples of abusive government, when the populace have grown to complacent and dependant on government for their 'security' . Neither government used religion to manipulate the masses, is all that can be said about either of them, wrt religion. They used the FEAR ,without the religious overtones.

They killed in the name of religious disbelief... stop using logic and reason.

[Drea]

Got off on a bit of a tangent there when someone stated that we are worse off today (because of secularism) than in the past (because of the belief in god)

But really, humans kill one another for many reasons -- religion being only one of them.

Yes I would say you did. You displayed your historical ignorance.

My original point stands:

If the human race was at it's most brutal to one another in the century which marked a loosening of theistic belief, it makes it rather difficult to argue that god is poison.

It is much easier to argue that humanity is the poison and more specifically intolerance of others with different beliefs.

And yet here you are mocking people for their beliefs..

By the way -- I did not write the article. I simply posted it.

Theist beliefs will always be intolerable -- its the nature of "religion" to be intolerant.

Yes, years ago it was much much better to burn so-called heretics in the name of "god" than to tolerate them. Yes, today it is so wonderful that practically an entire "religion" is willing to kill themselves in the name of a "god".

I stand by my original point -- the concept of god is poison to the human race as it will always pit one group against another -- unless of course one group is able to kill off or convert everyone.

Regardless of the statistical number of deaths from century to century the point remains -- There is no way to prove the existence of the invisible father figure and therefor there will never be agreement among "religions".

[M.Dancer]

There were mor people killed during the Culktural Revolution in one year than were ever burned or hung as heretics.

[Drea]

The thing is the concept of "god" is all about power and control.

I would much prefer that people thought of mother nature as the "creator" rather than some invisible entity in the sky. Kinda hard to say "Mother Nature will send you to... to .... to ...somewhere if you are "bad". LOL

Watched a program on N. Korea the other night - the people treat Kim LIKE a god. They have been brainwashed into thinking that without him they would all die (never mind they are starving to death now) a miserable death. Sounds suspicously like the propaganda and brainwashing done in the name of god.

[M.Dancer]

The thing is the concept of "god" is all about power and control.

You're projecting.

The thing is, your concept of God..............

[Drea]

The thing is the concept of "god" is all about power and control.

You're projecting.

The thing is, your concept of God..............

You are correct -- as I do not have my own concept of "god" (as a non believer) -- I am going on other's concept of it.

Of course I cannot say "neener, neener my god is better'n your god" as I do not have one.

I cannot say you are going to hell in a handbasket as I do not believe in the concept of hell.

As an atheist, I shall bow out and let the religious have at it.

Cheers!

[M.Dancer]

The thing is the concept of "god" is all about power and control.

You're projecting.

The thing is, your concept of God..............

You are correct -- as I do not have my own concept of "god" (as a non believer) -- I am going on other's concept of it.

Of course I cannot say "neener, neener my god is better'n your god" as I do not have one.

I cannot say you are going to hell in a handbasket as I do not believe in the concept of hell.

As an atheist, I shall bow out and let the religious have at it.

Cheers!

As a non atheist, I can't say those things either. Although some may do. Some might even be so presumptuous as to say their atheism is better.

But we know better than that, don't we?

[Figleaf]

As an atheist, I shall bow out and let the religious have at it.

Exactly. Theists have no business complaining about secularization or the insistence on rationality in public policy until and unless they can establish amongst themselves what is correct and true about "God" and it's plans or desires. Only if and when they get their act(s) together with a comprehensive, united understanding of this basic essential should the rest of the world give any credence whatsoever to their expatiations.

(Of course, how religions can ever come to any sort of agreement about what is correct is a mystery. If you can't resort to Reason as a basis for conversation, it gets pretty hard to come to build common ground. But that's their problem, not ours.)

[M.Dancer]

It's amazing what an arrogant ignorant ass someone can make of themselves when they try.

Only a fool or a bigot would suggest that reason and religion are incompatable.

I would suggest before she makes an even bigger fool of herself, that the reading list might include a little St Augustine, Kierkengard, CS Lewis and perhaps Thomas Cahill.

[White Doors]

Got off on a bit of a tangent there when someone stated that we are worse off today (because of secularism) than in the past (because of the belief in god)

But really, humans kill one another for many reasons -- religion being only one of them.

Yes I would say you did. You displayed your historical ignorance.

My original point stands:

If the human race was at it's most brutal to one another in the century which marked a loosening of theistic belief, it makes it rather difficult to argue that god is poison.

It is much easier to argue that humanity is the poison and more specifically intolerance of others with different beliefs.

And yet here you are mocking people for their beliefs..

By the way -- I did not write the article. I simply posted it.

Theist beliefs will always be intolerable -- its the nature of "religion" to be intolerant.

Yes, years ago it was much much better to burn so-called heretics in the name of "god" than to tolerate them. Yes, today it is so wonderful that practically an entire "religion" is willing to kill themselves in the name of a "god".

I stand by my original point -- the concept of god is poison to the human race as it will always pit one group against another -- unless of course one group is able to kill off or convert everyone.

Regardless of the statistical number of deaths from century to century the point remains -- There is no way to prove the existence of the invisible father figure and therefor there will never be agreement among "religions".

Sorry, engaging you in reasoned debate is like trying to talk to a person with Down's syndrome.

Well not quite, all the Down's people I know are happy and non-judgemental.

[Catchme]

...and to get back to the point of the thread, God is poison for that reason. The best example is the way Galileo was treated by the church. Religion stifles reason and logic. Religion shuns saying, "I don't know," in favour of saying, "it's because of God." Instead of teaching children to ask questions and seek knowledge, it stifles advancement by accepting a God or supreme being as the answer.

They're not allowed to find ways of curing people in the United States because stem cell research was made illegal. Illegal why? Because God will cry if we try to find ways of saving people.

Ridiculous that something as unprovable as God is getting in the way of producing REAL results of saving lives.

Exactly, it was the "Christians" who did not want surgery to occur ever, when surgery was a brand new science, and fought against its legalization because it was not God's will. Segments of that religiousity have carries forward to today as well.

We all know about the Muppets creator Jim Henisson (sp) and others like him who died needlessly because they believed God will cure.

Those type of "Christians" were in error back then, and so too are those today, who hold such narrow minded superstitions.

Again it is not God who is poison, it is those who try to make God into their own image, and call it religion.

[Figleaf]

Here's fascinating article on this subject:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/otani_reason.html

Excerpts:

As well as contributing to the advancement of civilization, ideas can be significant obstacles on the path to positive progress. Certain bodies of belief may have a harmful influence on the quality of our lives and the course of history. Religions can sometimes call for too much faith. They have, in many cases, contributed to the kind of obstinance and bigotry which obscures a clear view of reality. ... As Nietzsche once said, "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Christianity ... has satisfied people to the extent that many have lost productive aspects of their curiosity. People who are unwilling to question their sacred beliefs are not open to objective knowledge which is beyond their own subjective limits. ... In this way, religions have been interfering with development, growth, and progress. Dogmatic faith is the reason for much wasted potential. ... there is ample support for the proposition that many religious doctrines are much more destructive than they are constructive.

And this too is of interest ...

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/249285.htm

In Christianity, believing the basic Christian doctrines is a virtue and is rewarded with a place in heaven; disbelief is a vice and punished with a place in hell. Given such a context, it’s really not surprising that the “whys” of belief would be given such short shrift. ... When you don’t care why something is believed, in the end you don’t really care about what you believe because the methodology we use for determining our beliefs cannot be entirely disentangled from the content of those beliefs. When your beliefs are determined by reason and a skeptical, critical examination of the evidence, you demonstrate that you want the content of your beliefs to be reasonable, rational, and connected to reality.

When your beliefs aren’t determined by reason or a skeptical, critical examination of the evidence, you demonstrate that you don’t much care whether your beliefs are reasonable — or if they are connected to reality. ... The only way to successfully deal with reality is to care about how we arrive at our beliefs and how we distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs.

These thinkers have really struck the nail on the head. Any discussion of religion between a religious and non-religious person seems to go the same way:

Religious assertion is followed by probing rational questions. The religious assertions can't withstand the probe, so the religious proponent excuses his assertions by resort to a claim of faith. When the non-religious person points out that this means they are no longer sustaining their assertion through reason (i.e. that the assertion is not reasonable), the religious person gets all upset. It's like they want to be acknowledged as reasonable based on some sort of free-pass that exempts their version of 'reason' from having to conform to what reason means. At root it's a peurile, self-regarding attitude.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly, it was the "Christians" who did not want surgery to occur ever, when surgery was a brand new science, and fought against its legalization because it was not God's will. Segments of that religiousity have carries forward to today as well.

That's silly. Perhaps what your really might want to say is that one group of christians were opposed to surgery while another group of Christians were eager to advance it.

[Drea]

This post has been reported. No need to repeat it -- you know which one I mean, if not look up the date.

I WANT to insult you, but I won't. I shouldn't need to should I?

[Catchme]

Exactly, it was the "Christians" who did not want surgery to occur ever, when surgery was a brand new science, and fought against its legalization because it was not God's will. Segments of that religiousity have carries forward to today as well.

Perhaps what your really might want to say is that one group of christians were opposed to surgery while another group of Christians were eager to advance it.

I actually did say that by putting Christians in quotes and then later stating there were types of Christians and giving the definition of that type as being "narrow minded".

[Figleaf]

Perhaps what your really might want to say is that one group of christians were opposed to surgery while another group of Christians were eager to advance it.

...

Which of these groups of 'Christians' tended more to back their viewpoint with reference to religious doctrines?

Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding religious authority?

Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding individualistic religious interpretations?

I think you'll find that the objections to surgery revolved around particular interpretations of religious beliefs.

I think you'll find that more people who opposed surgery were employed in religious work, or were dedicatedly religious believers.

I think you'll find that more people who supported surgery were inclined to think outside the religious box of their place and time.

What's more, I think you'll find that the majority of scientific innovations, since the approximate birth of science in c.1500whatever, have generally been opposed by religion.

[cybercoma]

there is no evidence of the existance of god either.

Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs.

It's amazing what an arrogant ignorant ass someone can make of themselves when they try.

Only a fool or a bigot would suggest that reason and religion are incompatable.

Reason, logic, evidence, understanding, proof... All of these things are incompatible with God and without evidence for the existence of God, there is no need for religion. Religion and reason are therefore terribly incompatible because reason and understanding has destroyed ideas that religion has held to be true. See Galileo for evidence of that.

[Figleaf]

Only a fool or a bigot would suggest that reason and religion are incompatable.

Poor Dancer. No arguments, and no self control.

It's not every party that's graced with a beligerent, incontinent drunk -- mapleleafweb is just lucky, I suppose.