Is Faith Dangerous?

Evangelicalhumanist · Dec 16, 2020

74x12 said:
I guess I could say that they had nihilistic views or tendencies. I think of nihilism as a kind of over-arching category. Technically as pointed out already no one can really be a nihilist because you have to believe something and you have to have some purpose such as nihilism itself ... But nihilism as an ideal is striven for by many people. That's why I look at it as an overarching category.

Communism is based on atheism which is why atheism is always so heavily promoted by communist regimes. Communism doesn't work with religious people. The atrocities of communists go on to this day.

I do not agree that "Communism is based on atheism." Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Notice that there's not a word about religion, God, atheism in that definition.

In fact, you can find various versions of communist ideas going further back than Marx. Read Thomas More's Utopia, for example, and Thomas More was a very staunch papist Catholic who died refusing to deny his religion.

Now, it may well be true that Communism doesn't get along well with religion, but let's look at the reasons for that.

Karl Marx believed that communist hatred of faith is not a fault, but a feature. He said that religion is the “opium of the people,” but more importantly, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Criticism of religion is “the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Religion may show man’s longing for a better existence, Marx argued, but it also prevents that dream from becoming reality.

But no, Communism is NOT "based on atheism." Not in the slightest.

Straw Dog · Dec 16, 2020

Faith, as defined simply as ‘belief without evidence’, isn’t inherently dangerous. It’s not that different from hope, really. When we hope for something, we believe it is possible without any hard evidence of it actually happening yet.

Dogmatism is dangerous, though. Treating certain beliefs or principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration for evidence or the opinion of others is rigid, inflexible, intolerant, and authoritarian. It’s essentially expressing opinions as if they were facts.

Spoiler alert: Everything we hear is an opinion, even if some are more supported by evidence than others.

McBell · Dec 16, 2020

Faith is believing something your intellect would normally reject.

stvdv · Dec 16, 2020

stvdv said:
Note: Faith is personal "connection with God"

Evangelicalhumanist said:
What dictionary did you get that from? I can't find it anywhere.

Spirituality is not about Googling and dictionaries, is it?

Faith deepens the more you practice spirituality

For Atheists Faith might be just a word

Not for me

What is the Meaning of Faith in God?

"Faith in God implies recognition of the omnipresence, of the Divine in the universe and seeking to experience that divinity within one's self.
The Divine is One, though it may be called by many names. It must be realised that God is all-pervasive and nothing exists without the power of the Divine. One should not allow one's faith in God to be affected by the ups and downs of life.”

“All troubles should be treated as tests and challenges to be faced with courage and faith."

- SRI SATHYA SAI BABA, June 3, 1986, Brindavan

Shadow Wolf · Dec 16, 2020

74x12 said:
I guess I could say that they had nihilistic views or tendencies. I think of nihilism as a kind of over-arching category. Technically as pointed out already no one can really be a nihilist because you have to believe something and you have to have some purpose such as nihilism itself ... But nihilism as an ideal is striven for by many people. That's why I look at it as an overarching category.

Communism is based on atheism which is why atheism is always so heavily promoted by communist regimes. Communism doesn't work with religious people. The atrocities of communists go on to this day.

That totally misses the mark on what atheism, communism, and nihilism all are. None of them are related or promoted by eachother.

Brent Mcnealy · Dec 16, 2020

Can Love be dangerous? . .
Can Family be dangerous?. .
Can food be dangerous?. .

Why yes they can be.

74x12 · Dec 16, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Karl Marx believed that communist hatred of faith is not a fault, but a feature. He said that religion is the “opium of the people,” but more importantly, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Criticism of religion is “the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

So you admit that Marxist communism relies heavily on atheism. It wants to do away with all religion. It is atheistic and that's my point.

Heyo · Dec 16, 2020

Augustus said:
Dawkins to me epitomises the kind of rationalist, as described by Michaels Oakeshott as 'finding it difficult to believe any fair minded person could think differently to himself'.

As such, he tends to take on faith that rationality leads to his form of fuzzy secular humanism. Ironically, I do find faith in this Whiggish Idea of Progress dangerous too (although not in the same way as violent fundamentalism)

It is a feature of logic that it is precise and only one result can follow from a set of premises. That's why we 'finding it difficult to believe any fair minded person could think differently to himself'.
There are only two obstacles that can make us disagree:
1. You have different premises,
2. You don't use logic.

Heyo · Dec 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I do not agree that "Communism is based on atheism." Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Notice that there's not a word about religion, God, atheism in that definition.

In fact, you can find various versions of communist ideas going further back than Marx. Read Thomas More's Utopia, for example, and Thomas More was a very staunch papist Catholic who died refusing to deny his religion.

Now, it may well be true that Communism doesn't get along well with religion, but let's look at the reasons for that.

Karl Marx believed that communist hatred of faith is not a fault, but a feature. He said that religion is the “opium of the people,” but more importantly, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Criticism of religion is “the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Religion may show man’s longing for a better existence, Marx argued, but it also prevents that dream from becoming reality.

But no, Communism is NOT "based on atheism." Not in the slightest.

Adding to that: the churches in Marx time were capitalists with vast ownership of land and they behaved that title. While publicly showing magnanimity they raked in billions in rent, lease and tax free donations.

MonkeyFire · Dec 17, 2020

Please, anything can be dangerous. If faith were dangerous, then skepticism is terminal, and dis-belief has a suffering problem for no reason, neither does it matter nor does it have a purpose. Science is to knowledge as falling is love itself... when you think about it war is substantially more dangerous than faith.

Dawnofhope · Dec 17, 2020

thomas t said:
Last time I discussed a Dawkins video, most atheists here on RF agreed with him.

So this time I'd like to cite this video:

in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime. See minute 1:20 of said video.
Is he right in generalizing like this?

I doubt it.
Faith gets dangerous the moment you make accusations without providing the due evidence - or even better providing the proof for your reproaches.

If you just believe that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9am, as an example, you are not a dangerous person by default.
As unsibstanciated as your claim ever may be, it lacks the danger, I think.
You just need to be careful the moment you make or listen to unsubstanciated *reproaches*.

Thomas

I watched the first 5 minutes of the video. Dawkin’s is not just an atheist but a virulent anti-theist. He tends to focus on religious fundamentalism and avoids religious moderates and liberals. The idea that religious folk are unquestioning zealots who are unable to critically examine the world around them as well as their own beliefs is simply not true. I suspect his passionately yet sincerely held views contributes to the types of intolerance and prejudice he sees in religious fundamentalists.

Ehav4Ever · Dec 17, 2020

thomas t said:
in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime. See minute 1:20 of said video.
Is he right in generalizing like this?

I take a different path with this kind of concept. What I am going to present are not answers but questions and concepts that come up in my own mind for this kind of topic.

I would ask the question of - where does faith come from? Then I would ask what is crime? From there I would ask - what is it about humans that can cause them to be led to one path vs. another or to allow themselves to be led anywhere at all?

This also brings up the following followup questions.

What if someone is accused of a having faith in something that is false, yet they claim they don't have faith but instaed know what they are holding by is true based on their own logical/cultural method of investigation?
- You say faith and they say truth? Who gets to decide and what should be the result of such a decision?
What if a group says that they want to rid humanity of faith/religion but they lack the numbers to affect their concept on the faithful yet they have the resources to do so
- Should they do it?
- What if their attempt causes more suffering than not attempting?
- What if the faithful are able to out-survey the attempt, not matter the resources or the numbers?
What constitutes faith and what constitutes religion?
- If I have full faith that pineapples on a pizza is not a pizza and I start a religion on that one ideal alone, am I a threat to society?
- If I take a non-religious concept and develop a following behind it that is not, but can resemble, a religous following, am I a threat to society?
Who gets to decide what is accetable and what is not in a worldwide society?

i.e. For me the elephant in in the room is, if we can conclude that the things people have faith in or the religions are all false (and are thus human inventions) that leaves only one culpret to any crime - people. I.e. concepts have no physical form and thus we cannot hold concepts accountable. We can hold the "people" who create them accoutable.

Should faith and religion be a crime? How do you stop someone from commiting such a crime? How do you stop people from being led somewhere or by someone? How do you stop people from creating false concepts and ideas? If independent thinking is the source of faith and therefore religion - should indenpendent thinking be banned? I.e. most animal species, that I know of, don't create religions and faith and their societies operate on a very rigid, fair, and sometimes gruesome set of parameters. Be born, try to survive or be eaten, feed/grow, try to survive or be eaten, try reproduce, try to survive or be eaten, eventually not survive and be eaten. Is it possible that this is the reasonable path that humanity should take? If not, how much above this is acceptable and what is not? Who is deemed worthy to create the standard?

At the end of the day, trying to actually create a stop to people's ability to be led by something (true or false), create falsehoods, and live by a concept that they freely want to live by opens up the possibility where one says "I have to do whatever it takes to prevent people from doing [Fill in the blank]. I.e. I am taking away your freedom to exist the way you choose."

This then leads into the question, how far are you willing to go down the rabbit hole to stop people from doing something that has been a natural part of human existance? What if your own ideas create the same result, in human behavior, that you think should be stopped/changed/supressed/reversed in other people and which you attribute to [Fill in the blank]? What if what you see as a threat is your own perception? Do you have the right to promote your perception at the expense of someone else's? What if someone sees your own ideas as a threat? How do world wide socieities decide what is a threat to humanity and what is not?

Just some thoughts on my part.

ratiocinator · Dec 17, 2020

thomas t said:
in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime. See minute 1:20 of said video.
Is he right in generalizing like this?

The video is blocked for me, but yes, I think he's basically right. Obviously not every instance of faith is dangerous and many instances seem to positively affect the people involved. However, the notion of believing something without evidence is inherently dangerous because there is nothing that can constrain what a person has faith in. Hence religiously motivated terrorism, people killing abortion doctors, oppression of women or other ethnic or religious groups, condemnation of people based on sexual orientation, and so on, and so on.

thomas t · Dec 17, 2020

Heyo said:
This is possibly what Dawkins was referring to. You could say that's gullibility not faith but then ask yourself where your faith comes from.

It depends on which kind of person you are.
If you strictly adhere to the rule that you MUST see evidence before you adopt a claim to the detriment of other people.... those Voltaire is speaking of can't convince you to commit atrocities.

Even if you are among that type of folks that are easliy convinced that Jesus comes back tomorrow morning at 9am, with no evidence at all.... but at the same time you would never believe any *reproach* that comes without the due evidence... you would say NO to any hypotheses that claim voter fraud in America 2020.

That's the important point, as I see it: demanding good evidence when it comes to accusations against others.

But of course, I see many Christians adopting the voter fraud hypothesis without thouroughly investigating the claims and this gets dangerous, of course. This is at least my impression, and to me it's embarassing to see so many Christians spreading the gospel of voter fraud, as @Revoltingest put it.
So I'm not saying Christians can't be dangerous.

I'm saying the sweeping generalization that Dawkins made was unfounded, in my opinion.

Thomas

Ehav4Ever · Dec 17, 2020

Just to show how the big quesiton that often does not get answered with this kind of subject is one of whose perspective is the standard, consider the following examples.

A couple thousand years ago, a society of Hellonists decided that Jews living in the land of Israel should be convinced to take on the Hellonist concepts and a massive campaign was made to convince Jews to be reasonable and take on the Hellonist concept. Some did, but many did not. As the years went on the Hellonist society decided that the project was taking a bit more than time than they wanted and they started to up the stakes by targeting the center of Jewish culture - the Torah. Mind you that this was not happening in the center of Hellonist culture but instead in the center of Torah culture.

So, the society of Hellonist made a number of social and legal restrictions to cause the Jews living in Israel to conform to Hellonist society. The Hellonists saw their restrictions as being the source of reason, the Jews who kept Torath Mosheh did not see it that way. The Jews who kept Torath Mosheh had no concept of trying to make/convince Hellonists into becoming Torath Mosheh Jews and the Torah based Jews would have been content with the Hellonist going back to their homdlands and leaving Jews in Israel alone.

Time passed and tensions increased until a number of Hellonist social restrictions and regulations against the Torah culture of Torath Mosheh Jews sparked an uprising, from the Torah based Jews. From the Hellonist perspective the Torath Mosheh Jews were backwards, terrorists, primative, and lacking the facilities of reason. The Torath Mosheh Jews saw the Hellonists as backwards, terrorists, primative, and invaders.

Over time the Torath Mosheh Jews, at heavy expense and loss to both sides, were able to defeat the Hellonists enough to end the presence of those Hellonists in this region for a long period of time.

Another story. During the various Inquistions in Europe the Churches of various countries enacted regulations against Jewish societies, some of which required Jews to abandon the Torah and become Christian or face torture/worse or expulsion. Some Jews escaped, some Jews faced the torture/worse, some Jews faked conversion (while secretly keeping Torah), while some fully gave in and became Christian.

In order to weed out Jews who had converted, but were secretly still doing Torah, the Inquistion would often perform searches of homes of former Jews to see if they were still being Jewish. The price of secretly doing so was very severe. Some elements of the Inquistion in some countries didn't end until about the 1800's. Side note: There are a number of people who are now coming to be Jewish after finding out that they had ancestors that converted to Christianity during that time.

Last story. There was once a group of Jewish communities in Persia who were faced with a situation where the regime in power required that Jews must become Muslims, or else. The Jewish community, in public, bent to the requirement while secretly they maintained being Jewish. 200 years later the regime changed and the new regime struck down the decree. Within a short time frame all Jewish communities who had been forced to become Muslims returned to being Jewish. Since they had secretly been doing so it allowed them to go back to publically doing what they were doing for so long secretly. I.e. they made sure to live in the same neighborhoods, they would have secret rooms to keep Torah, and they would marry off their children (before birth) to other Jewish children to make sure that there was no marriage outside of the Jewish community.

All of this being said. Who is right and who is wrong here? Whose perspective gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? At what length does a side go to for their authority to decide what is reason and what is reasonable to survive?

Lastly, could it be that whoever is able to find ways to survive (which includes their ideology) is the one that gets to decide what is reason and what is reasonable?

thomas t · Dec 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Karl Marx believed that communist hatred of faith is not a fault, but a feature. He said that religion is the “opium of the people,” but more importantly, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Criticism of religion is “the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Religion may show man’s longing for a better existence, Marx argued, but it also prevents that dream from becoming reality.

Marx was so wrong when he thought it's right to use violence to convince people of his ideas. Communists continue to throw people of faith into the prisons and gulags. Even today. See North Corea. It's abhorrent.

oldbadger · Dec 17, 2020

thomas t said:
,...........
in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime.

Thomas

Oh dear...... poor old Dawkins. He does talk some bilgewater.

Faith just leads on to itself, faith.

There can be danger when nutters start to think that somebody is talking to them, but this condition is found in theists, nontheists, atheists.... maybe even deists.

Even Professor Dawkins could wake up one night, hearing a deep voice telling him to go forth.... I live in hope because that sure would make wonderful news.

Clara Tea · Dec 17, 2020

Faith dangerous? Theory, no. Practice, yes. Following God, no. Theists are supposed to be against war "thou shalt not kill" and Revelation is God's warning not to attack Iraq or face God's wrath (Revelation 15: (7 plagues, including COVID)).

When the 911 attack happened, people lost their faith. Without faith that God would handle the al Qaeda, humans took it upon themselves to seek protection from terrorism. They felt like sitting ducks, and it was so tempting to follow the lead of Satan (President W. Bush's comment that we have to take the war to the terrorists....that was Satan talking).

If we had followed God's laws, we'd be fine now. But, President W. Bush defied God, and pretended to be fighting the Axis of Evil. Satan always pretends to be on God's side, and always uses fear and lies to gain allies to do his evil.

Instead of following instructions in the bible (Revelation), President W. Bush defied God and attacked Iraq. Revelation says that two demons (dragon and beast) from the fiery brimstone bottomless pit of hell would both attack Iraq , and they are father and son). Knowing this, both Bush presidents attacked Iraq anyway, and that put us in the end times.....all life will end on earth--God will destroy us.

Is it dangerous to kill all life on earth? Yes, of course. One could argue that the good will be raptured to heaven. But, if you were for defying God or killing, you are not going to make it into heaven. What about repentance? One could repent at any other time, but there is no forgiveness at this point....no chance to get into heaven for most people.

Religion has motivated killing, but that was not following God's commands. When Christians calling themselves Nazis, during WW II, who followed Hitler and killed millions of Jews, they were not following God's command to "not kill."

When crusaders killed infidels, they were not following God's command to "not kill."

In the Inquisition, when infidels were tortured to convert to Catholicism and killed, they were not following God's command "thou shalt not kill."

A lot has been done in the name of Jesus, Christ, or God, that never originated with them.

Roman Catholic priests were ordered by men (not God) to not marry. This was to keep their estates in the possession of the church and not pass their possessions to their heirs. Mammon was at the root of the decision, and mankind made the decision (not God who said "go forth and multiply)." As a result, pent up sexual tension has driven priests crazy and they have forcible sex with minors (some in their own church). So, by following the words of mankind, and not listening to God, evil deeds are done.

Lets not listen to the words of Satan coming from the mouths of preachers today. Like Reverend John Hagee, urging prayer to Jesus to win the war in Iraq (kill more people in Iraq).

Following God is good, but mankind follows the words of mankind, instead.

wellwisher · Dec 17, 2020

Altfish said:
Unfortunately, the video is blocked.

But faith CAN be dangerous.
It is not always dangerous and can be irrelevant BUT there are plenty of ways in which it is dangerous when it starts influencing politics.

All innovation starts out with faith in something that has yet to be manifest and proven. Those who lack imagination for innovation, will not support that which they cannot see. When it does appear so the eyes can see, this can be considered dangerous, to those who are trying to maintain the status quo, due to faith in its infallibility.

Faith was key to the advancement of civilization since every improvement begins as something that cannot be yet seen or proven with hard data. If it is not natural to the earth, it will not just appear on the earth to be seen. The appearance comes later, after the vision that stems from those with the charisma of faith.

Faith in God is a way to exercise these unique human skills that have applications in all walks of innovation.

Altfish · Dec 17, 2020

wellwisher said:
All innovation starts out with faith in something that has yet to be manifest and proven. Those who lack imagination for innovation, will not support that which they cannot see. When it does appear so the eyes can see, this can be considered dangerous, to those who are trying to maintain the status quo, due to faith in its infallibility.

Faith was key to the advancement of civilization since every improvement begins as something that cannot be yet seen or proven with hard data. If it is not natural to the earth, it will not just appear on the earth to be seen. The appearance comes later, after the vision that stems from those with the charisma of faith.

Faith in God is a way to exercise these unique human skills that have applications in all walks of innovation.

Sorry, all innovation does NOT start with faith. Imagination is not the same as faith.

Before about 16th Century faith was indeed at the head of human advancement because it was the only game in town.
Faith did not create the COVID vaccine; faith did not invent the computer you are typing at or the internet that you are using.

You do not need faith in a god to exercise unique human skills and religion has often hampered development of knowledge - Galileo comes to mind straight away - but the likes of embryo research also.

Is Faith Dangerous?

as an atheist, do you think Dawkins was right in generalizing calling faith dangerous?

yes

no

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Certified People sTabber

Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

non-denominational Christian

Well-Known Member

non-denominational Christian

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member