[SpardaSon21]

Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.

You're joking, right?  Faith always finds a way.

[Turambar]

Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.

You're joking, right?  Faith always finds a way.

We got rid of smallpox and polio, faith should be up after we nab AIDS and cancer.

[Scotty]

Faith is not a disease, no matter how much you want to think of it as one.

The fact that you do, frankly, is insulting.

[Turambar]

Faith is not a disease, no matter how much you want to think of it as one.

The fact that you do, frankly, is insulting.

infectious, self-perpetuating, leading to deficiency in a major organ.  Sounds like a disease to me.

[NGTM-1R]

infectious, self-perpetuating, leading to deficiency in a major organ.  Sounds like a disease to me.

So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?

[Turambar]

did i say all ideas?  I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.

[Polpolion]

did i say all ideas?  I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.

You don't realize how silly you sound when you say that.

[Nuclear1]

I don't particularly care if someone subscribes to a religious belief.  Faith with regards to religion isn't necessarily a bad thing--but like everything with religion, applying it to the secular side of society is a bad thing.

Faith is belief in the absence of proof.  While this isn't a bad thing when it comes to believing in salvation and unconditional forgiveness, it does become a problem when people apply the "absence of proof" to the law and science.  "God said so" doesn't work when it comes to the rights of man ("homosexuality is wrong"), or to the causes of diseases (plagues being the wrath of God, etc.).

We live in a world where everything we do needs to be grounded in proof--faith is inherently contradictory to this.  If we lived in a world where everyone was able to distinguish between their spiritual need for faith and the real world need for reason and proof, religion wouldn't be such a problem.  Unfortunately, a fair number of people can't--and they usually end up getting their way in the world.

But when secular movements gain ground anywhere--teaching evolution in schools, legalizing gay marriage, separating church and state--religious groups have a tendency to get fussy and play the persecuted, even when secular movements want nothing more than to coexist.  

So the combination of all of this--people's sensitivity to religious groups, a belief that one doesn't need proof to believe something, and people's inability to separate their spiritual and secular lives--makes religion dangerous.  

[watsisname]

Excellent post, Nuclear.  I wish more people in the world thought like that.

[NGTM-1R]

did i say all ideas?  I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.

Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral Threat^TM.

You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.

[Mars]

I don't particularly care if someone subscribes to a religious belief.  Faith with regards to religion isn't necessarily a bad thing--but like everything with religion, applying it to the secular side of society is a bad thing.

Faith is belief in the absence of proof.  While this isn't a bad thing when it comes to believing in salvation and unconditional forgiveness, it does become a problem when people apply the "absence of proof" to the law and science.  "God said so" doesn't work when it comes to the rights of man ("homosexuality is wrong"), or to the causes of diseases (plagues being the wrath of God, etc.).

We live in a world where everything we do needs to be grounded in proof--faith is inherently contradictory to this.  If we lived in a world where everyone was able to distinguish between their spiritual need for faith and the real world need for reason and proof, religion wouldn't be such a problem.  Unfortunately, a fair number of people can't--and they usually end up getting their way in the world.

But when secular movements gain ground anywhere--teaching evolution in schools, legalizing gay marriage, separating church and state--religious groups have a tendency to get fussy and play the persecuted, even when secular movements want nothing more than to coexist.  

So the combination of all of this--people's sensitivity to religious groups, a belief that one doesn't need proof to believe something, and people's inability to separate their spiritual and secular lives--makes religion dangerous.  

This is the best, most concise explanation I've ever seen!

[Sushi]

did i say all ideas?  I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.

Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral Threat^TM.

You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.

For that matter, any kind of abstract idea whatsoever. Do you believe in the existence of truth? Justice? Prove it. Betcha 20+ centuries of philosophy you can't.

[iamzack]

did i say all ideas?  I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.

Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral Threat^TM.

You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.

For that matter, any kind of abstract idea whatsoever. Do you believe in the existence of truth? Justice? Prove it. Betcha 20+ centuries of philosophy you can't.

That's because, like deities, we made those things up. They don't exist naturally, they only exist in our heads. Duh.

The difference being that truth and justice are ideas that are meant to make the world a better place for everyone. Religions only create ingroups and outgroups.

[SpardaSon21]

Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?

[iamzack]

Religion causes charity. Also holy wars, planes into buildings, largescale slavery, genocide, widespread torture, you name it!

[Herra Tohtori]

Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?

I question the proposed cause-effect chain.

[Hades]

Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?

Maybe if you can find any proof.

[General Battuta]

Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?

Meaningless. Too methodologically confounded to be good science.

I'm not anti-religion but those sorts of claims are not empirically valid.

[SpardaSon21]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

[Flipside]

Interesting that the age group 42-49 is considered 'young' by that piece...

My problem with that report is that many churches require a donation for 'church-run charities', was this differentiated from truly voluntary donations rather than 'someone's handed me the donation tin in the middle of a church, I'm going to look bad if I don't put money in'. Also, it's a common problem with any scientist performing studies on people that physics doesn't lie, people do. Some religions require a percentage of the persons' wages, they would consider that as a 'charitable' donation, because it sits more easily with their phsyche than thinking the money is taken from them.

Frankly, the whole idea you can define charitability from Social, Religious or Political leanings is a pretty iffy bit of spin-doctoring, apparently, if you are a secular liberal, you are a tight fisted bastard according to that report, I have to question the neutrality of the person creating it. I suspect there is a certain amount of bitterness amongst secular people in the US, when you have Fox News claiming that appealing to atheists is 'offensive' in Obamas inauguration speech, I don't expect they really feel all that welcome in the US. But the US is not the world, it's a very strange society in a lot of ways, constantly at war with itself over what 'Freedom' is, and who it applies to in what way. It's very difficult to set a religious 'standard' of behaviour from the US because many people say they are religious purely to avoid being persecuted for not being so.

Edit: Look at it this way, we've got the Pope here in the UK at the moment attempting to re-write history and Hitlers motives behind WW2, purely for the sake of demonizing atheists. I don't think it will work, because he picked the wrong country to say it in, the UK is pretty aware of the history behind WW2, but there are countries where that kind of claim would have taken a hold because people wanted to believe it. I would include the US on that list.