Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[firedragon]

This thread is to discuss a particular claim as of course said in the title. I have heard similar sentiments said the the so called "four horsemen". This is of course not the real sentiment of atheistic scholars in general or atheistic social scientists in general, but I guess some of the evangelical atheists though they dont like to referred to as such.

Is there any truth in this? What is the data that can be provided to affirm this by those who do claim it? What is the study methodology?

In the world of preaching and rhetoric, theists used to have this idea that any theist, muslim or Christian who does something wrong, like abominable sins that are against religious teachings like murder, rape, etc are not-religious. They are considered atheists. Of course this is not based on some kind of quantitative poll, but general rhetoric in circles. But the thing is this. When a theist refers to someone in that manner because he is a sinner, they dont associate the sinner with atheists who call themselves atheists as a group of people with a world view, they just call him "God-less". It is an accusation of pretending to be a Muslim or Christian but is Godless. The idea is that if you are a believer, you will not do that sin. Well hell, if one believes he will really go to hell for something he will not do it. Thus, in their logic, he simply cannot be a believer. So, in traditional circles there is this religious idea that atheism is by default harmful, but more often it is the sinner who is actually associated with atheism, not atheism with sinning, if you can understand that.

Why do these atheists who make the claim in the Title actually make that claim? Is it also a religious belief just like the theists described above? But in fact, it is in my opinion worse than the claim of the theists because theists dont associate atheism as a whole harmful in general, but these atheists claim theology as a whole is harmful. Done, and dusted.

So, whats the study?

I think its a very interesting topic.

 

[Link]

If I didn't believe in God and guidance from him, I would agree, because all falsehood is harmful to believe.

 

[Link]

And the reason is if you believe in falsehood then you are sabotaging your means of knowledge. If you believe in truth and falsehood and don't distinguish between knowledge of truth and falsehood, you sabotage your reasoning and knowledge of truth. You can't be certain of truth if you deceive yourself you are certain of falsehood.

Some philosophers argued there is also negative effects on society when we don't fine tune our beliefs to verify with proof and don't base knowledge with evidence proofs or insights.

Problems such as being accused of false crime and people believing it and also false propaganda, rumors, etc...

 

[Link]

I'm going to vote yes, but I make ONE exception, which is the truth.

 

[firedragon]

And the reason is if you believe in falsehood then you are sabotaging your means of knowledge. If you believe in truth and falsehood and don't distinguish between knowledge of truth and falsehood, you sabotage your reasoning and knowledge of truth. You can't be certain of truth if you deceive yourself you are certain of falsehood.

Some philosophers argued there is also negative effects on society when we don't fine tune our beliefs to verify with proof and don't base knowledge with evidence proofs or insights.

Problems such as being accused of false crime and people believing it and also false propaganda, rumors, etc...

Brother. I am not a real fan of preaching like that. This kind of advice can be pointed right back at the maker. That is the reason. I prefer actual analysis.

Peace.

 

[Link]

Brother. I am not a real fan of preaching like that. This kind of advice can be pointed right back at the maker. That is the reason. I prefer actual analysis.

Peace.

This was taught by an Atheist philosopher in my university - that some philosophers are of the view that you should make your beliefs to be based on proof insights or evidence because there are consequences when we don't make our belief making to be on truth but on falsehood.

In this sense, I believe Islam and Atheists can agree.

 

[firedragon]

I'm going to vote yes, but I make ONE exception, which is the truth.

You have not understood the purpose of the thread. Even if you believe on your particular is truth, and all other theologies are harmful, is it by default or by outcome? Why and what is the data?

If its gonna be some belief statement of some divine nature then its alright, but its not relevant for this thread.

Your prerogative.

 

[firedragon]

This was taught by an Atheist philosopher in my university - that some philosophers are of the view that you should make your beliefs to be based on proof insights or evidence because there are consequences when we don't make our belief making to be on truth but on falsehood.

In this sense, I believe Islam and Atheists can agree.

Tks.

 

[Link]

You have not understood the purpose of the thread. Even if you believe on your particular is truth, and all other theologies are harmful, is it by default or by outcome? Why and what is the data?

If its gonna be some belief statement of some divine nature then its alright, but its not relevant for this thread.

Your prerogative.

I already explained why from my viewpoint and it's both by default and outcome. The reason is self-honesty towards belief is a virtue, honesty to one's knowledge is a virtue and the opposite a vice, lying to yourself is a vice. However, the outcome is that people easily believe in false propaganda and bad systems of justice and go to war with people with no insights all because of not enjoining truth and basing one life on only truth.

 

[firedragon]

@Azrael Antilla Maybe this might interest you.

 

[firedragon]

I already explained why from my viewpoint and it's both by default and outcome. The reason is self-honesty towards belief is a virtue, honesty to one's knowledge is a virtue and the opposite a vice, lying to yourself is a vice. However, the outcome is that people easily believe in false propaganda and bad systems of justice and go to war with people with no insights all because of not enjoining truth and basing one life on only truth.

This is just preaching brother. Please try to understand.

Whats the study? Whats the research?

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is to discuss a particular claim as of course said in the title. I have heard similar sentiments said the the so called "four horsemen". This is of course not the real sentiment of atheistic scholars in general or atheistic social scientists in general, but I guess some of the evangelical atheists though they dont like to referred to as such.

Is there any truth in this? What is the data that can be provided to affirm this by those who do claim it? What is the study methodology?

In the world of preaching and rhetoric, theists used to have this idea that any theist, muslim or Christian who does something wrong, like abominable sins that are against religious teachings like murder, rape, etc are not-religious. They are considered atheists. Of course this is not based on some kind of quantitative poll, but general rhetoric in circles. But the thing is this. When a theist refers to someone in that manner because he is a sinner, they dont associate the sinner with atheists who call themselves atheists as a group of people with a world view, they just call him "God-less". It is an accusation of pretending to be a Muslim or Christian but is Godless. The idea is that if you are a believer, you will not do that sin. Well hell, if one believes he will really go to hell for something he will not do it. Thus, in their logic, he simply cannot be a believer. So, in traditional circles there is this religious idea that atheism is by default harmful, but more often it is the sinner who is actually associated with atheism, not atheism with sinning, if you can understand that.

Why do these atheists who make the claim in the Title actually make that claim? Is it also a religious belief just like the theists described above? But in fact, it is in my opinion worse than the claim of the theists because theists dont associate atheism as a whole harmful in general, but these atheists claim theology as a whole is harmful. Done, and dusted.

So, whats the study?

I think its a very interesting topic.

I haven't heard any one make this claim. I heard some say bad theology is... well bad. Or like Dawkins, make claims about specific theologies being bad.
Although Dawkins has made a few incendiary claims in the media, I suspect to increase his book sales.

Bad? Harmful in a cognitive sense? Maybe to the individual. Maybe some might see it as such but that is more likely their personal opinion.

I don't think it would be practical to make such a statement about all theology.

 

[Link]

This is just preaching brother. Please try to understand.

Whats the study? Whats the research?

The philosophers made arguments. Some of them include that if we are prone to believe what we want as opposed to fact checking and basing belief on a firm basis, we can be deceived about others by false reputation and conjecture of people who speak falsehood and harm people. I see this is also confirmed in reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I haven't heard any one make this claim. I heard some say bad theology is... well bad. Or like Dawkins, make claims about specific theologies being bad.
Although Dawkins has made a few incendiary claims in the media, I suspect to increase his book sales.

Bad? Harmful in a cognitive sense? Maybe to the individual. Maybe some might see it as such but that is more likely their personal opinion.

I don't think it would be practical to make such a statement about all theology.

I've heard the claim made. Not commonly, but it's a thing.

 

[Link]

I also believe even if the outcomes was nor corruption in the earth and wars based on falsehood and lies and oppression that all results from following desires and not basing life on knowledge and truth with proofs, that, self-lying and self-deception is harmful in itself because it's corruption of our nature of being true when we lie to ourselves and deceive ourselves with respect to what we know.

 

[Lain]

This thread is to discuss a particular claim as of course said in the title. I have heard similar sentiments said the the so called "four horsemen". This is of course not the real sentiment of atheistic scholars in general or atheistic social scientists in general, but I guess some of the evangelical atheists though they dont like to referred to as such.

Is there any truth in this? What is the data that can be provided to affirm this by those who do claim it? What is the study methodology?

In the world of preaching and rhetoric, theists used to have this idea that any theist, muslim or Christian who does something wrong, like abominable sins that are against religious teachings like murder, rape, etc are not-religious. They are considered atheists. Of course this is not based on some kind of quantitative poll, but general rhetoric in circles. But the thing is this. When a theist refers to someone in that manner because he is a sinner, they dont associate the sinner with atheists who call themselves atheists as a group of people with a world view, they just call him "God-less". It is an accusation of pretending to be a Muslim or Christian but is Godless. The idea is that if you are a believer, you will not do that sin. Well hell, if one believes he will really go to hell for something he will not do it. Thus, in their logic, he simply cannot be a believer. So, in traditional circles there is this religious idea that atheism is by default harmful, but more often it is the sinner who is actually associated with atheism, not atheism with sinning, if you can understand that.

Why do these atheists who make the claim in the Title actually make that claim? Is it also a religious belief just like the theists described above? But in fact, it is in my opinion worse than the claim of the theists because theists dont associate atheism as a whole harmful in general, but these atheists claim theology as a whole is harmful. Done, and dusted.

So, whats the study?

I think its a very interesting topic.

I'd think that they say it because they consider them to be false, and holding on to error in the mind is considered harmful.

I voted "no" because I disagree that all of them are erroneous, and I think true theology is (one of?) the greatest thing for man to do.

 

[Link]

Some of Quran condemn polytheism from the viewpoint that it equates with God. Most of the verses condemning actually condemn it because it's attributing to the Divine and Religion what we don't know and without proof.

More of Quran condemn polytheism on the basis that it's done without ground and without proof, than verses that it belittles God. Both are done, but more verses occur about the fact it's done without proof and based on a lie.

 

[Nakosis]

I've heard the claim made. Not commonly, but it's a thing.

I've heard it in the sense that humanity would be better off without it. That it does more harm than good. That to me is different than saying all theology is bad.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is to discuss a particular claim as of course said in the title. I have heard similar sentiments said the the so called "four horsemen". This is of course not the real sentiment of atheistic scholars in general or atheistic social scientists in general, but I guess some of the evangelical atheists though they dont like to referred to as such.

Is there any truth in this? What is the data that can be provided to affirm this by those who do claim it? What is the study methodology?

In the world of preaching and rhetoric, theists used to have this idea that any theist, muslim or Christian who does something wrong, like abominable sins that are against religious teachings like murder, rape, etc are not-religious. They are considered atheists. Of course this is not based on some kind of quantitative poll, but general rhetoric in circles. But the thing is this. When a theist refers to someone in that manner because he is a sinner, they dont associate the sinner with atheists who call themselves atheists as a group of people with a world view, they just call him "God-less". It is an accusation of pretending to be a Muslim or Christian but is Godless. The idea is that if you are a believer, you will not do that sin. Well hell, if one believes he will really go to hell for something he will not do it. Thus, in their logic, he simply cannot be a believer. So, in traditional circles there is this religious idea that atheism is by default harmful, but more often it is the sinner who is actually associated with atheism, not atheism with sinning, if you can understand that.

Why do these atheists who make the claim in the Title actually make that claim? Is it also a religious belief just like the theists described above? But in fact, it is in my opinion worse than the claim of the theists because theists dont associate atheism as a whole harmful in general, but these atheists claim theology as a whole is harmful. Done, and dusted.

So, whats the study?

I think its a very interesting topic.

Half (49%) in a new global study agree that religion does more harm than good in the world, and 51% disagree,
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-study-shows-half-think-religion-does-more-harm-good

Do you mean like this? Doing more harm than good?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.
They argue for anarchy, but it is not real. They would call the police when it suits them.

They want to make their own version of morality. They want to act immorally if they so desire.
We can see what is happening in the west.
Political correctness is the order of the day.

I used to live in Eire. As most of you know, it is a Catholic country.
..or was. When I was there [ in 1986 ], laws were based on "what the Pope said", such as abortions were illegal, and contraceptives could not be publicly sold.
I went back a few years ago, and it seems that membership of the EU is more important now than the Pope.

..but I digress.
Theology is not harmful. It is disbelief in G-d that is harmful, imo.
It is hypocrisy that is harmful.