Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by lilithu

My objection to the first sentence is answered in the second two. To say that the problem of religious extremism is rooted in religion is to say that there is some inherent problem in religion that, in small doses is benign but in large doses is malignant. Thus, religion becomes something that we merely tolerate when it's in small doses and must aggressively treat when it it's in large doses. Sorry, but I do not agree.

I'd say that Mother Theresa had a very large dose of religion in her. Do did Dr. King. So does Desmond Tutu. Religion has been used to both divide and to unify. Like all other human constructs, it can lead to both good things and bad things. It's a very powerful construct so it can lead to powerful good and powerful bad, but there is nothing inherently wrong with religion.

I think that it is a little misleading to speak in terms of doses. Long term exposure to balanced religion produces balanced people. Long term exposure to extremist religion produces extremists. Both are religious, but of different types.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I think that it is a little misleading to speak in terms of doses. Long term exposure to balanced religion produces balanced people. Long term exposure to extremist religion produces extremists. Both are religious, but of different types.

If you say the problem is "rooted in religion" then you cannot make a distinction between "balanced" and "unbalanced." If you say the problem is "rooted in religion" then long term exposure to any religion will lead to problems.

By your own argument, it's not religion that's the problem, it's "imbalance." It could be imbalance in a number of different things.

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by lilithu

My objection to the first sentence is answered in the second two. To say that the problem of religious extremism is rooted in religion is to say that there is some inherent problem in religion that, in small doses is benign but in large doses is malignant. Thus, religion becomes something that we merely tolerate when it's in small doses and must aggressively treat when it it's in large doses. Sorry, but I do not agree.

I'd say that Mother Theresa had a very large dose of religion in her. Do did Dr. King. So does Desmond Tutu. Religion has been used to both divide and to unify. Like all other human constructs, it can lead to both good things and bad things. It's a very powerful construct so it can lead to powerful good and powerful bad, but there is nothing inherently wrong with religion.

While bathing just now I realised I spoke wrongly here. I did not mean to say "rooted in religion". I totally contradicted myself in the rest of the post. What I meant to say was that religious extremism cannot be totally nonreligious. I meant that in this case, religion in the thing that is being taken to extremes to suit another purpose.

There is nothing inherently wrong with religion. However, some religious texts contain certain things that can be taken to extremes. Even if they are taken to extremes for reasons other than the obvious ones (deep and honest belief), the texts are still dangerous. Or at least can be when taken to extremes. Gosh I'm such an eloquent communicator... =)

edit: Ohhh and just before I get beaten to a pulp! Although I said the texts can be dangerous when taken to extremes, I do understand that 99.9999999% of believers do not take them to extremes, and therefore the problem cannot be said to be rooted in religion. The problem is USUALLY economical or sociological, even political. I suspect the root of the problem is our mind itself.

[mball1297]

Here's an analogy for you:

Think of it as medicine. All in all, medicine is good and helps people, and definitely is not inherently bad. But medicne affects people in different ways. The same medicine that cures me or at least helps me might not have any effect on you, or it might have a very negative effect on you. No one would advocate getting rid of medicine completely, but when it comes to medicine, it can be observed objectively and the faults can be found. People who take medicine generally know the risks it brings, and the possible side effects. Religion has side effects with some people that cause things like 9/11, but it's hard to address that issue because of the personal nature of religion in general. People are too easily offended by comments on religion, for the most part. It's the same reason you don't just talk about it with a perfect stranger you meet on the street.

I just constantly hear how much good religion does, and how many good things are accomplished because of religion, but as soon as the possibility of it causing something bad is brought up, there's a huge objection. If you don't think religion causes anything good in the world, then I have no problem with you claiming that it doesn't cause bad things like 9/11. If it can be a cause for good things, though, then it can be a cause for bad things too.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Here's an analogy for you:

Think of it as medicine. All in all, medicine is good and helps people, and definitely is not inherently bad. But medicne affects people in different ways. The same medicine that cures me or at least helps me might not have any effect on you, or it might have a very negative effect on you. No one would advocate getting rid of medicine completely, but when it comes to medicine, it can be observed objectively and the faults can be found. People who take medicine generally know the risks it brings, and the possible side effects. Religion has side effects with some people that cause things like 9/11, but it's hard to address that issue because of the personal nature of religion in general. People are too easily offended by comments on religion, for the most part. It's the same reason you don't just talk about it with a perfect stranger you meet on the street.

I'm not sure I buy your analogy, but I am sure that's not what Dawkins is saying. You can't point to people being offended by Dawkins and say that means people aren't willing to listen to any kind of criticism.

Originally Posted by mball1297

I just constantly hear how much good religion does, and how many good things are accomplished because of religion, but as soon as the possibility of it causing something bad is brought up, there's a huge objection. If you don't think religion causes anything good in the world, then I have no problem with you claiming that it doesn't cause bad things like 9/11. If it can be a cause for good things, though, then it can be a cause for bad things too.

We must live in very different worlds. I rarely hear anyone talk about how much good religion does, ever, except in reaction to people talking about the harm it's done. The only time I point to Mother Theresa or Gandhi or King as examples of "religious good" is when people point to the 9/11 hijackers as examples of "religious bad." Otherwise, to me these are people, doing what they do based on a number of different influences of which religion is just one. What I constantly hear is people claiming that religion caused 9/11, the crusades, the witch trials... but when I point to good things like the abolitionist movement and suffrage and the Civil Rights movement, people say "That would have happened anyway" even if those people weren't religious. Gah!! From my perspective, I'm not the one applying the double standard.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Hexaqua_David(II)

edit: Ohhh and just before I get beaten to a pulp! Although I said the texts can be dangerous when taken to extremes, I do understand that 99.9999999% of believers do not take them to extremes, and therefore the problem cannot be said to be rooted in religion. The problem is USUALLY economical or sociological, even political. I suspect the root of the problem is our mind itself.

lol! I personally had no problem with your post as originally written.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Apex

I haven't read it yet, but I want to. I am just hesitant on spending money on a book that half the people claim is a piece of crap and the other half act as if it is divinely inspired even though they do not believe in deity.

See if it's at a local library....(maybe)....

[mball1297]

Quote: