Are there religious "fanatics" that are not harmful?

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
You sound like a Stalin in training. Never heard someone ascribe the word "criminal" to one teaching their children their religious beliefs. You are more fanatic towards your beliefs than most christians I know.

Ah c'mon, man, this is the internet. I don't know about you, but I can't help from busting a gut laughing when you're reading a guy who posts in one thread about the evils of religious belief and how it should be criminal to teach religion and yet has another recent thread (still on the 1st page) entitled: "Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America!"
This is a level of doublethink you just cannot buy anywhere!

You do mangle words eloquently to suit yourself, Vic. I never said it should be criminal to teach religion, I basically said it should be criminal to forcibly teach it to minors against their will who otherwise do not have the ability to say "NO, I do not want to go to church."

Do you even have children? Children are forcibly taught to do a whole bunch of shit they dont want to do, such as go to school, mind their manners at the table, bathe, etc. Even if you dont truly believe in religion, it is still an effective measure to get kids to act straight, as a fear of going to hell is a compelling reason to do what you have been told is the right thing. Telling kids that Santa wont come if they are bad is very similar.

I totally disagree. Fear is not a good mechanism for teaching respect. If the person teaching the children isn't incompetent, they can get the idea of "treat others how you'd like to be treated" across without telling them they're going to an imaginary pit of fire and pain for eternity. That can, you know, screw a kid up...

Fear != Respect. Ever.

The only people who ever told me that I needed to fear a higher power were people I didn't know, much less people I was required to listen to. My family raised me to respect people, and to respect them just for the sake of respect (unless they disrespect me). Not for fear of damnation, or for fear of punishment. This way everyone will be better off, and my life will become a little happier as well as theirs. This goes along side with the term "sin". Sin, in my opinion, is a selfish and useless idea. It's the idea that thoughts and actions that are not actually morally wrong, are still wrong according to "god" (or the people who invented said god, in other words), and that is absolute bullshit. It's a warped version of "morally wrong" that also includes thoughts and actions that individuals are uncomfortable with, no matter how truly bad they are. Take homosexuals for example. Are they wrong, or bad? Even if it IS their choice? No, they're not bad, they're not hurting anyone. But religion doesn't need it to be bad, they just need it to be a "sin", and then all other explanation as to why it's bad is unnecessary because GOD SAID SO (again, god is actually the people who invented him).

Fear is a pathetic tool for pathetic people.

Please let it be noted that this is not every case with Christianity.

I was taught not to do wrong, not so much because of Hell, but because living a better life, treating others well, respecting others, and helping others, makes me happier in my own life. I see, for example, the 10 Commandments not as a limiter of life, but rules and a guide to a fuller and happier life, not just for others around me, but for myself as well.

You can't lump all Christians together. And you certainly shouldn't try to see Christianity in the same distorted view of some, if not most, Christians. As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians." At least he was able to see Christianity as it really is, rather than how it is often practiced. But then, Gandhi was a very intelligent man.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Point two. Morally wrong would be any action that directly or indirectly hurts someone. Anything from laughing at a fat woman right to her face, to rape/torture/murder. There are all sorts of "moral wrongs", but they all have that one thing in common. They hurt someone. Of course, there are different degrees of wrong... If a child stole a piece of candy at a grocer, I wouldn't condemn him/her as evil like I would a rapist or molester, obviously :laugh:. That's another thing wrong with "sin", too. They're all given the same punishment, should you not repent. Unless I'm wrong? Or unless someone believes in LEVELS of hell, which is just as plausible as the existence of one hell.

I ramble a lot, sorry.

The question I come up with on that definition of morality is then, what level of harm becomes morally wrong, and how intentional does that have to be? Given that studies show children do best in two-parent households, is it harming the child and therefore becomes morally wrong to raise children in a one-parent household?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: manowar821

Point two. Morally wrong would be any action that directly or indirectly hurts someone. Anything from laughing at a fat woman right to her face, to rape/torture/murder. There are all sorts of "moral wrongs", but they all have that one thing in common. They hurt someone. Of course, there are different degrees of wrong... If a child stole a piece of candy at a grocer, I wouldn't condemn him/her as evil like I would a rapist or molester, obviously :laugh:. That's another thing wrong with "sin", too. They're all given the same punishment, should you not repent. Unless I'm wrong? Or unless someone believes in LEVELS of hell, which is just as plausible as the existence of one hell.

I ramble a lot, sorry.

The question I come up with on that definition of morality is then, what level of harm becomes morally wrong, and how intentional does that have to be? Given that studies show children do best in two-parent households, is it harming the child and therefore becomes morally wrong to raise children in a one-parent household?

Statistics are averages. Not all two parent households are successes in rearing children and not every one parent household is a failure.

The perfect solution is to derivate the positive experience/skill gained from both and consul parents over better child care.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: manowar821

Point two. Morally wrong would be any action that directly or indirectly hurts someone. Anything from laughing at a fat woman right to her face, to rape/torture/murder. There are all sorts of "moral wrongs", but they all have that one thing in common. They hurt someone. Of course, there are different degrees of wrong... If a child stole a piece of candy at a grocer, I wouldn't condemn him/her as evil like I would a rapist or molester, obviously :laugh:. That's another thing wrong with "sin", too. They're all given the same punishment, should you not repent. Unless I'm wrong? Or unless someone believes in LEVELS of hell, which is just as plausible as the existence of one hell.

I ramble a lot, sorry.

The question I come up with on that definition of morality is then, what level of harm becomes morally wrong, and how intentional does that have to be? Given that studies show children do best in two-parent households, is it harming the child and therefore becomes morally wrong to raise children in a one-parent household?

Statistics are averages. Not all two parent households are successes in rearing children and not every one parent household is a failure.

The perfect solution is to derivate the positive experience/skill gained from both and consul parents over better child care.

Definitely true that stats are merely averages and that individual situations vary widely. I'd still be interested in hearing manowar's response to the hypothetical though, since it was only being used as a rough example to ask the general question.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Well, as a child I was profoundly struck by Christ's love but like you I came to see that religion is a joke. That was the death of me because it turned my life black. I saw there is no difference between good and evil, that they are merely human inventions, and the death of every innocent child everywhere makes no real difference at all in this cold and empty universe. All human longing ans suffering and hope for the good is in vane. So I died to the possibility that life could ever have meaning. I let go of all that I had and immediately awoke to discover I always had had everything. The love I had thought was out there was nowhere but in my own heart. Without the longing for Christ I felt as a child I doubt I ever would have seen. Thanks God for religion.

He who makes a sword also makes sparks.

My dear SlickSnake, yours is a religion of sparks.

Well, unlike you, my life has not turned black. The spark is the spark of truth, not fables and lies cloaked in the threat of damnation to scare the weak minded into behaving. And if you ever did have a real religious epiphany, you would immediately see the hypocrisy in what you were believing in. Just look at what religion is used to support such as political objectives like murder and warfare. You can't have love and compassion and hatred and intolerance in the same magical play book. True salvation don't work like that. You have to pick one or the other or you and your religion is false. That is the very definition of religious hypocrisy.

But as they say, the truth will set you free. And falsely believing blind faith and some higher entity will set you free and magically enlighten you on the road to nirvana is just a delusional fantasy. But if it works for you, hey, go for it. Enjoy those Sunday all you can eat potluck brunches all you want to. Just don't confuse that casual social interaction with real religiosity, because it's not. And it never will be. You won't find inner enlightenment at the bottom of a stew pot or a collection plate. But I wish you a lot of luck trying. And if you only get just a little brainwashed and misdirected in the process, it's all good, right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Religion is a mental disease predominately spread by easily influenced, simple minded sheeple who don't know any better and are desperately looking for some peer group to fit into, however absurd it might be. Which is why it comes in so many flavors.

The most destructive long term aspect of religions is the indoctrination and brainwashing of the young sheeple involved with the religions through their parents adamant ministrations. The children really do not know any better, since they never really had a chance to form their own opinions about anything to start with. What you then end up with is generation after generation of religious zombies who literally can not think for themselves and view their entire existence based on a non verifiable assumption that they have been brainwashed into accepting.

And not to mention a lot of sheeple simply use it to easily justify anything they can not comprehend, such as outer space, creation or death. They can not accept when you die, that is it. They have to have some fantasy to look forwards too, and religion easily provides whatever that hope or fantasy might be, since other people who wanted it to be true thought it up a long time before you were even born.

So if you are religious, then by that very admission you must be fanatical about it, otherwise you would not claim it as your own. Unfortunately so many societal functions revolve around religion, such as marriage with a tax deduction and benefits, that society as a whole still goes along for the free joy ride on even though the exercise of religion by the majority of participants might be completely lacking, such as never going to church at all.

Then politics and politicians come along and easily manipulate and pull that string of brain dead religious sheeple where ever they want it to go by just invoking said religion, magical tomes and icons associated with it at every possible opportunity.

What about arrogance, conceit, and closed-mindedness? Are those mental diseases as well?

You just defined religion, religion is all about that, they are right, you are wrong and there is no debate to be had since it's always right no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.

It surprises the sheit out of me that you don't get that. I really think you do get that and that you are defending someone, perhaps yourself.

 

[Drift3r]

I found many female exotic dancer at the few adult night clubs I have visited in life who would say yes.

Fanatics of all kinds are harmful period as they cannot be reasoned with and more often then not do not have a middle ground.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Well, as a child I was profoundly struck by Christ's love but like you I came to see that religion is a joke. That was the death of me because it turned my life black. I saw there is no difference between good and evil, that they are merely human inventions, and the death of every innocent child everywhere makes no real difference at all in this cold and empty universe. All human longing ans suffering and hope for the good is in vane. So I died to the possibility that life could ever have meaning. I let go of all that I had and immediately awoke to discover I always had had everything. The love I had thought was out there was nowhere but in my own heart. Without the longing for Christ I felt as a child I doubt I ever would have seen. Thanks God for religion.

He who makes a sword also makes sparks.

My dear SlickSnake, yours is a religion of sparks.

Well, unlike you, my life has not turned black. The spark is the spark of truth, not fables and lies cloaked in the threat of damnation to scare the weak minded into behaving. And if you ever did have a real religious epiphany, you would immediately see the hypocrisy in what you were believing in. Just look at what religion is used to support such as political objectives like murder and warfare. You can't have love and compassion and hatred and intolerance in the same magical play book. True salvation don't work like that. You have to pick one or the other or you and your religion is false. That is the very definition of religious hypocrisy.

But as they say, the truth will set you free. And falsely believing blind faith and some higher entity will set you free and magically enlighten you on the road to nirvana is just a delusional fantasy. But if it works for you, hey, go for it. Enjoy those Sunday all you can eat potluck brunches all you want to. Just don't confuse that casual social interaction with real religiosity, because it's not. And it never will be. You won't find inner enlightenment at the bottom of a stew pot or a collection plate. But I wish you a lot of luck trying. And if you only get just a little brainwashed and misdirected in the process, it's all good, right?

You are quite right. But unfortunately you are also insane. You are still holding on to meaning, still mad that there's no truth. You are angry that people are deluded, including yourself. I was too. To die is to let go of that pain, to become a nothing. Your anger and rage gives your life meaning. I couldn't play that game. My religious training, such as it was as a child, taught me to be honest and so honest I was. Everything I believed was pure and utter crap, including all my opinions about religion. I let go of everything.

 

[shira]

Being a "true believer" isn't necessarily harmful - to the believer or to others. The danger arises when a belief system regards other belief systems as invalid (or worse, blasphemous) and requires that non-believers conform.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Thanks for answering the question. Your views seem quite common and I think there are elements of your post that are valid. There is something about how you articulate it in sweeping generalizations that make me want to encourage you to continue to personally experience the "sheeple" and learn about why they do what they do. You might be surprised on occasion. It won't change your view, I think, but it would help sharpen the valid points and remove the pieces that many posters recognized as fanatical in their own right.

I have personally experienced quite enough sheeple in religions, thanks for the advice on experiencing more of it, anyhow. I kind of doubt further harmful psychological exposure to them is going to change my views on religions. I have a family stocked full of Christian religitards, including preachers and prophets and the silent wives and children who out of fear of rejection do not question anything that they are brainwashed and indoctrinated with. Questioning this iron clad religious authority at all in my family results in ostracism. And if that is not arrogance, conceit, and closed-mindedness then I certainly do not know what it is, Vic.

Ah, so you've experienced closed-minded, conceited, arrogance in the religious practices of your own family. And from that you generalize that everyone who professes to believe in a religion is closed-minded, conceited, and arrogant.

My own experience is that there are "believers" that span the continuum from reasonable, rational people who nevertheless thirst for a connection with "something," yet wouldn't dream of judging the beliefs of others, let alone impose their own beliefs on them - to those like you describe, and far, far worse.

We all believe in something - I happen to believe in the non-existence of God. But my belief is just a baseless as those who DO believe. All beliefs about God are baseless, in the scientific sense. Which according to you makes us all fanatical sheeple.

However, my opinion is that if one leavens their beliefs with humility - with the thought, "I cannot possibly KNOW what I believe" - then they have taken a major step toward non-fanatical, non-sheepleness.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Well, unlike you, my life has not turned black. The spark is the spark of truth, not fables and lies cloaked in the threat of damnation to scare the weak minded into behaving. And if you ever did have a real religious epiphany, you would immediately see the hypocrisy in what you were believing in. Just look at what religion is used to support such as political objectives like murder and warfare. You can't have love and compassion and hatred and intolerance in the same magical play book. True salvation don't work like that. You have to pick one or the other or you and your religion is false. That is the very definition of religious hypocrisy.

But as they say, the truth will set you free. And falsely believing blind faith and some higher entity will set you free and magically enlighten you on the road to nirvana is just a delusional fantasy. But if it works for you, hey, go for it. Enjoy those Sunday all you can eat potluck brunches all you want to. Just don't confuse that casual social interaction with real religiosity, because it's not. And it never will be. You won't find inner enlightenment at the bottom of a stew pot or a collection plate. But I wish you a lot of luck trying. And if you only get just a little brainwashed and misdirected in the process, it's all good, right?

Funny thing about this post is that it's directed to the wrong person. Perhaps some bible-thumping, fire and brimstone spewing / etc., church-goer could warrant such a post, but Moonbeam? How could you confuse him with a church-going, brunch-eating socialite?

So: Such a post could very well have come from a person such as Moonbeam, who would distance him or herself from both the conventional secular world, and the conventional religious worlds. It's ironic, and I commend you for this point of view, but point out that there are "believers" who also hold such a point of view.

A distinction I'd personally make is the following: That church-going, ritual-following, etc., while not in themselves very meaningful and profound, can have indirect benefits. Moonbeam writes of that; as does the literature at large.

 

[TheSlamma]

I respect people who have individual spirituality, wether it's with "god" or trees and plants or whatever floats your boat.

Religion however is something I would love to see the end of.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: shira
Being a "true believer" isn't necessarily harmful - to the believer or to others. The danger arises when a belief system regards other belief systems as invalid (or worse, blasphemous) and requires that non-believers conform.

Or vice-versa.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Thanks for answering the question. Your views seem quite common and I think there are elements of your post that are valid. There is something about how you articulate it in sweeping generalizations that make me want to encourage you to continue to personally experience the "sheeple" and learn about why they do what they do. You might be surprised on occasion. It won't change your view, I think, but it would help sharpen the valid points and remove the pieces that many posters recognized as fanatical in their own right.

I have personally experienced quite enough sheeple in religions, thanks for the advice on experiencing more of it, anyhow. I kind of doubt further harmful psychological exposure to them is going to change my views on religions. I have a family stocked full of Christian religitards, including preachers and prophets and the silent wives and children who out of fear of rejection do not question anything that they are brainwashed and indoctrinated with. Questioning this iron clad religious authority at all in my family results in ostracism. And if that is not arrogance, conceit, and closed-mindedness then I certainly do not know what it is, Vic.

Ah, so you've experienced closed-minded, conceited, arrogance in the religious practices of your own family. And from that you generalize that everyone who professes to believe in a religion is closed-minded, conceited, and arrogant.

My own experience is that there are "believers" that span the continuum from reasonable, rational people who nevertheless thirst for a connection with "something," yet wouldn't dream of judging the beliefs of others, let alone impose their own beliefs on them - to those like you describe, and far, far worse.

We all believe in something - I happen to believe in the non-existence of God. But my belief is just a baseless as those who DO believe. All beliefs about God are baseless, in the scientific sense. Which according to you makes us all fanatical sheeple.

However, my opinion is that if one leavens their beliefs with humility - with the thought, "I cannot possibly KNOW what I believe" - then they have taken a major step toward non-fanatical, non-sheepleness.

A nice post. I would like to have you clarify, though, if you don't mind, what you mean by not KNOWing what you believe. One form of humility I can think of is not BELIEVING what you know.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Well, as a child I was profoundly struck by Christ's love but like you I came to see that religion is a joke. That was the death of me because it turned my life black. I saw there is no difference between good and evil, that they are merely human inventions, and the death of every innocent child everywhere makes no real difference at all in this cold and empty universe. All human longing ans suffering and hope for the good is in vane. So I died to the possibility that life could ever have meaning. I let go of all that I had and immediately awoke to discover I always had had everything. The love I had thought was out there was nowhere but in my own heart. Without the longing for Christ I felt as a child I doubt I ever would have seen. Thanks God for religion.

He who makes a sword also makes sparks.

My dear SlickSnake, yours is a religion of sparks.

Well, unlike you, my life has not turned black. The spark is the spark of truth, not fables and lies cloaked in the threat of damnation to scare the weak minded into behaving. And if you ever did have a real religious epiphany, you would immediately see the hypocrisy in what you were believing in. Just look at what religion is used to support such as political objectives like murder and warfare. You can't have love and compassion and hatred and intolerance in the same magical play book. True salvation don't work like that. You have to pick one or the other or you and your religion is false. That is the very definition of religious hypocrisy.

But as they say, the truth will set you free. And falsely believing blind faith and some higher entity will set you free and magically enlighten you on the road to nirvana is just a delusional fantasy. But if it works for you, hey, go for it. Enjoy those Sunday all you can eat potluck brunches all you want to. Just don't confuse that casual social interaction with real religiosity, because it's not. And it never will be. You won't find inner enlightenment at the bottom of a stew pot or a collection plate. But I wish you a lot of luck trying. And if you only get just a little brainwashed and misdirected in the process, it's all good, right?

You are quite right. But unfortunately you are also insane. You are still holding on to meaning, still mad that there's no truth. You are angry that people are deluded, including yourself. I was too. To die is to let go of that pain, to become a nothing. Your anger and rage gives your life meaning. I couldn't play that game. My religious training, such as it was as a child, taught me to be honest and so honest I was. Everything I believed was pure and utter crap, including all my opinions about religion. I let go of everything.

Umm, yea. Mark Twain said heaven for climate and hell for company. I guess that makes you a climatologist.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A nice post. I would like to have you clarify, though, if you don't mind, what you mean by not KNOWing what you believe. One form of humility I can think of is not BELIEVING what you know.

Moonbeam, this is nonsense. Of course as you meant it, it may be sensible, but I think it's wrong to give the impression that believing in spirituality necessitates the sort of nuttiness that statement shows at face value.

To clarify: I understand your statement to mean that one should question what they think they "know".

However, real knowledge (whatever that is) is not something that you should or could disbelieve, if and when you have it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Well, as a child I was profoundly struck by Christ's love but like you I came to see that religion is a joke. That was the death of me because it turned my life black. I saw there is no difference between good and evil, that they are merely human inventions, and the death of every innocent child everywhere makes no real difference at all in this cold and empty universe. All human longing ans suffering and hope for the good is in vane. So I died to the possibility that life could ever have meaning. I let go of all that I had and immediately awoke to discover I always had had everything. The love I had thought was out there was nowhere but in my own heart. Without the longing for Christ I felt as a child I doubt I ever would have seen. Thanks God for religion.

He who makes a sword also makes sparks.

My dear SlickSnake, yours is a religion of sparks.

Well, unlike you, my life has not turned black. The spark is the spark of truth, not fables and lies cloaked in the threat of damnation to scare the weak minded into behaving. And if you ever did have a real religious epiphany, you would immediately see the hypocrisy in what you were believing in. Just look at what religion is used to support such as political objectives like murder and warfare. You can't have love and compassion and hatred and intolerance in the same magical play book. True salvation don't work like that. You have to pick one or the other or you and your religion is false. That is the very definition of religious hypocrisy.

But as they say, the truth will set you free. And falsely believing blind faith and some higher entity will set you free and magically enlighten you on the road to nirvana is just a delusional fantasy. But if it works for you, hey, go for it. Enjoy those Sunday all you can eat potluck brunches all you want to. Just don't confuse that casual social interaction with real religiosity, because it's not. And it never will be. You won't find inner enlightenment at the bottom of a stew pot or a collection plate. But I wish you a lot of luck trying. And if you only get just a little brainwashed and misdirected in the process, it's all good, right?

You are quite right. But unfortunately you are also insane. You are still holding on to meaning, still mad that there's no truth. You are angry that people are deluded, including yourself. I was too. To die is to let go of that pain, to become a nothing. Your anger and rage gives your life meaning. I couldn't play that game. My religious training, such as it was as a child, taught me to be honest and so honest I was. Everything I believed was pure and utter crap, including all my opinions about religion. I let go of everything.

Umm, yea. Mark Twain said heaven for climate and hell for company. I guess that makes you a climatologist.

You understand as much about heaven as you do about God, in short, nothing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A nice post. I would like to have you clarify, though, if you don't mind, what you mean by not KNOWing what you believe. One form of humility I can think of is not BELIEVING what you know.

Moonbeam, this is nonsense. Of course as you meant it, it may be sensible, but I think it's wrong to give the impression that believing in spirituality necessitates the sort of nuttiness that statement shows at face value.

To clarify: I understand your statement to mean that one should question what they think they "know".

However, real knowledge (whatever that is) is not something that you should or could disbelieve, if and when you have it.

If real knowledge is not a something, nothing whatever to do with words or thoughts, but a state of being conscious, then there is only awareness and nobody who is aware. There is no belief or doubt, no thought, no opinion, only endless eternal being and infinite joy. It makes no sense to speak of belief or doubt because if there is only awareness there is no self.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: shira
Being a "true believer" isn't necessarily harmful - to the believer or to others. The danger arises when a belief system regards other belief systems as invalid (or worse, blasphemous) and requires that non-believers conform.

I can only think of one example of that mentality in terms of a religion (in modern times).

That said, ALL religions view themselves as the true path to God, thus invalidating the rest, to a certain extent anyway.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Obviously the two most high profile "fanatic" groups are extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, and there are wonderful examples like Waco and 9-11 that you can dredge up where harm was done. However, are there groups that would similarly meet the criteria of extremist or fanatic that do no harm?

The Amish come to mind - they live their Christian beliefs to an unbelievable extreme, and you might consider them to be one of the least harmful groups of people in existence.

You could take Tibetan Buddhists in the same way - the Dalai Lama and his adherents are certainly dedicated in the extreme to their beliefs, but there is a group that you have to respect for the good they've done and continue to do.

It seems to me that the old axiom of "correlation does not imply causation" may apply. Violence and religious fanaticism can certainly be correlated, but I'm not sure that you can factually associate religious fanaticism as the cause of harm.

The point when emotions are high is when violence is most likely to erupt. The point when emotions are high is when people are most likely to join a religious, political or other ideological movement. Does religious extremism cause violence or are violence and religious extremism joint effects of a common cause?

Naturally there is no one answer for this, as each individual acts and reacts in completely unique ways. But the generalization is often made that religious fanaticism causes harm, when it seems reasonable to me that it could equally be harmless. Harmless just doesn't make headlines. Plus, rough generalizations shape the way people view the world, accurate or not. It's much easier to write "Muslim fanatics burn building in jihad" than to write "Loosely assembled group of people driven by a multitude of personal emotional and ideological reasons burn building to made a series of complex and convoluted points that we can't really discover, much less print in a headline."

How do you define fanatics?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: shira
Being a "true believer" isn't necessarily harmful - to the believer or to others. The danger arises when a belief system regards other belief systems as invalid (or worse, blasphemous) and requires that non-believers conform.

I can only think of one example of that mentality in terms of a religion (in modern times).

That said, ALL religions view themselves as the true path to God, thus invalidating the rest, to a certain extent anyway.

True, as those who believe in atheism or are secularists would believe that their way is right, and as such their beliefs invalidate all religious beliefs.

I don't see what the big deal is with saying, "I believe my belief/worldview is right and your belief/worldview is wrong. Let's get lunch." If we can't do that, we are seriously closed minded. It is good to accept all people for who they are despite differences of belief.

 

[palehorse]

I believe that it all comes down to the leaders of any group of fundamentalists, and how they choose to guide their "flock." The membership will remain peaceful as long as their leadership avoids violent direction. However, if the leadership preaches violence, then the flames are quickly lit. This is the danger inherent in the fine line they walk between peace and violence.

This applies to ANY/EVERY ideological or theological group of people.

It's all about the leadership.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Religion is a mental disease predominately spread by easily influenced, simple minded sheeple who don't know any better and are desperately looking for some peer group to fit into, however absurd it might be. Which is why it comes in so many flavors.

Sounds an awful like the national socialists, communists, or your local street gang as well.

The most destructive long term aspect of religions is the indoctrination and brainwashing of the young sheeple involved with the religions through their parents adamant ministrations. The children really do not know any better, since they never really had a chance to form their own opinions about anything to start with. What you then end up with is generation after generation of religious zombies who literally can not think for themselves and view their entire existence based on a non verifiable assumption that they have been brainwashed into accepting.

Sounds like the situation within our public school systems via modern day liberalism.

So if you are religious, then by that very admission you must be fanatical about it, otherwise you would not claim it as your own. Unfortunately so many societal functions revolve around religion, such as marriage with a tax deduction and benefits, that society as a whole still goes along for the free joy ride on even though the exercise of religion by the majority of participants might be completely lacking, such as never going to church at all.

marriage is a religious insitution but is also a society institution. Society grants benefits to people who are married becauae a family structure provides for a better home for children than a broken home.

Then politics and politicians come along and easily manipulate and pull that string of brain dead religious sheeple where ever they want it to go by just invoking said religion, magical tomes and icons associated with it at every possible opportunity.

Politicians also pull the strings of the brain on other issues that have little to do with religion. That is what politicians do. For instance

Global Warming
Feeding the poor
Healthcare for kids
Xenophobia
Nationalism
Protectionism
Class warfare

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ever get caught in a cross fire fight with a Meninite gang clashes with the Amish ?

Yes and it was brutal. The words they used sounded so 1840!

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
That said, ALL religions view themselves as the true path to God, thus invalidating the rest, to a certain extent anyway.

This is a strawman that's often used to discredit all religions. It also has an element of truth, in that the selfish, tribal, chauvinistic, etc., tendencies tend to make people cling to their limited view to the explicit exclusion or opposition of other views.

Once people hear the validating references to Jesus in the Qur'an for example, this view is harder to maintain. Taking the Qur'an seriously, this view of inherent profound opposition of religion or prophets is impossible to maintain. However, people maintain this position, showing their own failings in the understanding of religions, prophets and God in the meanwhile.

There are ways out of this assumption of sole validity, which start with not making the assumption.