Religion: Is it Dangerous?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Of all the wars and various atrocities comitted throughout history, many of the worst and bloodiest were done in the name of religion. Your thoughts:

[HansDuet]

And religion is a tool.

Leaders use brainwashed people to rally against the infidel.

Same goes for nationalism etc.

[Manoflooks]

Yes. xtremely dangerous. They should all be abolished.

Except buddhism. We should all be buddhists. No, Im not buddhist.

People claim that religion helps more than it hinders, but if you look at the world today, and throughout time, it has constantly harmed. Sure it helps a lot, but it gave too many people reasons and excuses to do things.

[The Noble Lord]

Yes. xtremely dangerous. They should all be abolished.Except buddhism. We should all be buddhists. No, Im not buddhist.

So every religion should be abolished except Buddhism. Why would you keep Buddhism and eradicate all other religions, care to elaborate on that??

[Ummon]

The frequency of threads like these only shows that atheism is dangerous and intolerant.

[Manoflooks]

The frequency of threads like these only shows that atheism is dangerous and intolerant.

Atheism has nothing to do with it. You can be a full on christian and believe that religion in general can be dangerous. You wouldnt think religion was bad, just dangerous.

[Taiji]

The frequency of threads like these only shows that atheism is dangerous and intolerant.

I'd go a step further and say humans instead of atheism or religion. Either question seems stupid when I look at this one:

"Humanity: Is it dangerous?"

I don't think it matters much how people justify doing what they want, they'll do it anyway.

[Z17]

Religion is just one of many tools used by evil people. If it didn't exist, they'd just find another one.

Religion itself is not intrinsically dangerous.

[Ummon]

I'd go a step further and say humans instead of atheism or religion. Either question seems stupid when I look at this one:

"Humanity: Is it dangerous?"

I don't think it matters much how people justify doing what they want, they'll do it anyway.

Absolutely correct. But in history there are trends, and it is far more likely that atheists will slaughter religious people today, than the other way around, so circumstantially, as of now, atheism is more dangerous.

I didn't think it would affect me but the more +rep I get the harder I work

It's called reinforcement. :wink:

[Djûn]

But in history there are trends, and it is far more likely that atheists will slaughter religious people today, than the other way around, so circumstantially, as of now, atheism is more dangerous.

Blimey, that's quite a claim. Do we have any sources?

[Lord Thesaurian]

, and it is far more likely that atheists will slaughter religious people today, than the other way around, so circumstantially, as of now, atheism is more dangerous.

Thats far opposite of the truth. How can an ideology that shuns religion and fanatacism be more dangerous than an ideology that uses mind control and emotional fervor to accomplish its aims?

[AqD]

The frequency of threads like these only shows that atheism is dangerous and intolerant.

What? Am I supposed to be nice to those who tell we must live under a !@#$% lord and we would go to hell if we don't follow his guide? Their god is, as they have described by themselves, dangerous and intolerant.

Anyone who thinks there is something on the top of us is either brainwashed or wicked

[The Dude]

Of all the wars and various atrocities comitted throughout history, many of the worst and bloodiest were done in the name of religion. Your thoughts:

Religion in itself isn't dangerous. Essentially what it does is speak to people's gullibility and naieveté.

As it happens, gullibility and naieveté are the prime tools for would-be-dictators and powermongers to abuse when they want to win over a crowd. So religion automatically comes in handy.

That in itself leads me to vote yes. While I completely recognise that religion may be a very good and powerful thing on a personal level and that it has enriched the lifes of many people, but in the end it's too prone to abuse.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Religion in itself isn't dangerous. Essentially what it does is speak to people's gullibility and naieveté.

As it happens, gullibility and naieveté are the prime tools for would-be-dictators and powermongers to abuse when they want to win over a crowd. So religion automatically comes in handy.
.

these "prime tools" you speak of are among the fundamental tactics that religion uses to push its agenda, recruit new members, and control those within it.

[Rich86]

The frequency of threads like these only shows that atheism is dangerous and intolerant.

Yes, trying to have a discussion about wether or not something is dangerous is, in itself dangerous and intolerant. Let's never discuss anything like this ever again ever.

[Chaigidel]

well it just shows an unhealthy fixation on something that should be below your intellectual pursuits.

[Helm]

I'd say it can be dangerous, if it's used in the wrong way by the wrong kind of people. But you could apply that to almost anything.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'd say it can be dangerous, if it's used in the wrong way by the wrong kind of people. But you could apply that to almost anything.

yes, but religion is more unifying and potent than "almost anything." Thats why leaders throughout history have used it to unify their subjects/followers toward a common purpose.

[Kiljan Arslan]

yes, but religion is more unifying and potent than "almost anything." Thats why leaders throughout history have used it to unify their subjects/followers toward a common purpose.

Really Stalin and Moa did? Robespierre did?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Really Stalin and Moa did? Robespierre did?

Yes. All great modern dictators have set up their own state religion, even the commie ones. They would usually create a religion where the state (ie the dictator) was god. often the given dictator would use rallies and public demonstrations as "church services" at which he could fill the minds of his subjects with propaganda. Stalin is perhaps one of the masters of this tecnique. When asked by his son why his son couldnt take the name Stalin, Stalin answered fervently: "I am Stalin, because I am the state! Stalin is Soviet power, Stalin is the State!" This perhaps embodies the aim of every great dictator. When u can make the populace utterly and unfailingly devoted to u, when u can merge urself w/ the state, u can do whatever u want, and there will be no consequences from within.