Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[lewisnotmiller]

Utilitarian?

Yeah. Usefulness?
I saw in that thread that you actually responded, back when it was new, so I really didn't need to link to it.

But your comment here about a faith system possibly being erroneous not meaning it's harmful by default reminded me of that topic.

There are lots of contradicting faiths, and I'd suggest they can't all be 'right' in any literal sense. But right or wrong, they can be useful.

Thats not the same as saying they ARE useful, since I think it's much more contextual than a one size fits all answer. But still...things don't need to be 'right' to be useful.

 

[osgart]

Do you contend that theology is just dishonest and atheism is just honest? Is not that a huge faith claim? Are you driven by faith?

Theology is not dishonest. They are honestly wrong when they claim atheism is dishonest. I've been atheist for a long time now and it's a sincere position. Theology is only harmful when it makes character judgments about atheism. There may be scientific drawbacks from theism as well. Other then that it's benign.

I've been accused of being a heathen, and an infidel before just because I don't believe in God. I think that kind of theology is harmful.

 

[Lain]

See, even if some faith system is erroneous, does it really do harm by default?

If one considers error to do harm because it means the person will make false judgments about reality then yes. And I do also.

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't say non-belief .. I said DISbelief.
Disbelief usually entails aggressive opposition to Abrahamic religion.

Ok, fair enough. That is more something other religions might do.
If your ok with non-belief, I guess we are on the same page.

 

[Nakosis]

Opinion polls show opinions. Not even correspondence.

I doubt you are going to get more than opinion when it comes to religion but I was really trying to clarify your question.
I've seen folks make the claim that religion does more harm than good. That's an opinion.
The original question seems an impractical claim for anyone to make.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Wikipedia

FOUR HORSEMEN:

1. Pestilence (white)(kill by sword, famine, plague (plague is in some bible translations).

2. War (red)

3. Famine (black)

4. Death (pale)

PSYCHIC INTERPRETATION:

The four horsemen warnings in the bible were conveyed by God to (presumably) Saint Thomas the Divine, then written into the bible in a chapter called Revelation.

Psychic information appears as sight, sound, touch, and knowledge somehow plucked out of the air. This is because we have eyes, and a part of the brain to process visual stimuli, and we have ears, and a part of the brain to process aural stimuli, and we have nerves in our body to sense pain and touch sensation, and a part of the brain to process touch. But, we do not have a particular part of the brain to process psychic information (ESP). So, psychics sense visions with the parts of their brains that process other senses. This is why churches look like candles, etc. How, then, does the psychic understand his visions? Psychics, after years of practice, can interpret some (but not all) of what they sense. Thus, they can say that candles are churches. But, when it came to the complex modern communication network that allowed President W. Bush to form alliances in merely hours, ancient man had no clue how it actually would work, but merely had a vague idea that it will work in the future. Indeed, many nations allied with the United States in mere hours (many nations like France and Germany refused, since the US lacked evidence).

This explains why Revelation is so difficult to interpret, and why so many people don't believe Revelation.

Of course, the four horsemen vision is part of Revelation (a chapter of the bible).

ARE WE EXPECTING REAL HORSES?

No, of course not. As explained above, Revelation is written as a psychic interpreted it, and it is symbolic, not realistic.

GOD'S ACTIONS OR MANKIND'S ACTIONS?

These four horsemen will come as a result of mankind's actions. Thus, atheists will say that bad decisions caused the bad news, and theists will say that God caused it as part of his wrath. For example, it was a very bad decision for the Religious Right to mix religion with politics and settle on religious phony, President W. Bush. That bad decision created an avalanche of bad decisions made by W. Bush, himself. For example, W. Bush chose to worship mammon (money) more than God. God sees the future. God warns mankind. Yet, mankind defies God (wars, neglecting the homeless, worship oil money more than God), so reaps God's wrath (God told us so, and we didn't listen).

The world is a mess, and God will end the world (and all life) soon. This isn't because the bible is wrong, it isn't because Jesus was wrong, it isn't because God is wrong. It is merely because mankind defied (and continues to defy) God.

God said "thou shalt not kill" (is this one of the "Ten Suggestions"....no, this is one of the "Ten Commandments" and this is God's law. President W. Bush defied God, and had no faith that God would handle the terrorists in His own way.

 

[Clara Tea]

I doubt you are going to get more than opinion when it comes to religion but I was really trying to clarify your question.
I've seen folks make the claim that religion does more harm than good. That's an opinion.
The original question seems an impractical claim for anyone to make.

Sort of like "Hitler tortured to death Jews" is just an opinion?

 

[Clara Tea]

This is a cool thread and an interesting topic.

As a skeptic and atheist, I think theology can only exist within a fundamentally flawed epistemology.

If you accept that your theology is merely an exercise of your personal imagination, then it can be useful as an introspective tool. You can explore your values, hopes, purpose, and other deep personal insights. However, if you want to claim or believe that these insights have any correspondence to the world outside of your thoughts and imagination, theology lacks any tools to justify such claims or beliefs.

All of the modern tools of reason and logic that we have discovered in our long march of progress, which have demonstrated again and again their ability to lead to accurate conclusions about reality, do not support any theological consideration that I'm aware of. If you accept such theological ideas, and use them as a conceptual scaffold for other ideas you find believable, then you're setting yourself up to believe a lot of false or unverifiable things. And yes, I think that can become a problem that can harm yourself and people around you.

In psychology grad school, I learned that there is a psychological process called "transference." That means "I didn't declare war on Iraq, God made me....it's God's fault." So, it isn't introspective, it is shedding blame. God is a handy entity to blame for all of our problems. But, God wrote the bible (transferring the info psychically to his followers), and in that bible, God told us how to behave (thou shalt not kill), and told us the consequence of attacking Iraq (Revelation 15: seven plagues). So, God taught us, warned us, and now theists blame God for causing all of this man-made mess (debt, homelessness, wars, torture camps, pollution, global warming, etc).

Logic and known facts don't support ESP, yet, the work of Dr. Jessica Utts proves it. If ESP exists, why not God?

 

[Clara Tea]

Theology is not dishonest. They are honestly wrong when they claim atheism is dishonest. I've been atheist for a long time now and it's a sincere position. Theology is only harmful when it makes character judgments about atheism. There may be scientific drawbacks from theism as well. Other then that it's benign.

I've been accused of being a heathen, and an infidel before just because I don't believe in God. I think that kind of theology is harmful.

Theology isn't only wrong when they make character judgements. It is wrong about Global Warming, and that caused our leaders to do nothing about it, and it will lead to the destruction of all life. It is wrong about electing their people to high offices, then ignore the homeless. It is wrong in making wars (defying God who said that we must not kill), and making torture camps. The world is a mess, and theology is the cause.

The religions are not bad, but theists refuse to follow their own bibles.

 

[rational experiences]

Four seasons owned by ice God O earths fusion held saviour

The physical body. Newly born end year as win. Winter. Balances between two summer and winter sea...son he said. Gods son owned stable life balances.

Not any man. Taught by men.

A direct human teaching versus satanisms. Science. Isms...theories.

When India who lived with all animal types nuclear reacted the UFO avedic cause....men tried to escape the ground nucleation eruption.

On horses.

Died.

It became a cloud memory only.

As the witnessed nuclear event came to men from the east in a burning sky gas eruption lots of methane.

What science quoted was the time shifting gas as it removed biological existence.

They witnessed the occurrence. Taught it's reality. Science caused it.

Who is the human who argues bible history?

Human scientists.

Why?

It is not modern evolved man's science methodology.

So all they had to do was ask what was old man's science telling us as warnings.

And allow the teaching to be known. Instead of arguing like evil minds do.

 

[F1fan]

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

Well to avoid that all you have to do is believe what you do must be exclusive truth, and others false. That is why you are a good Mormon.

 

[F1fan]

I'd say No.

I suggest only bad people, or those who are easily manipulated by bad people, use ideology in harmful ways. I don't think ideologies are harmful as a rule.

It's a better question to ask why religious ideologies don't make bad people better.

 

[F1fan]

The world is a mess, and God will end the world (and all life) soon. This isn't because the bible is wrong, it isn't because Jesus was wrong, it isn't because God is wrong. It is merely because mankind defied (and continues to defy) God.

Except God made humans the way they are. If God wanted more mature and stable beings it should have created them that way. God didn't.

It is as if God is bored and set up a nice staged drama to watch, and also blamed the actors for it all.

It all falls in God's lap. Humans are just doing what they were created to do..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Theology isn't only wrong when they make character judgements. It is wrong about Global Warming, and that caused our leaders to do nothing about it, and it will lead to the destruction of all life. It is wrong about electing their people to high offices, then ignore the homeless. It is wrong in making wars (defying God who said that we must not kill), and making torture camps. The world is a mess, and theology is the cause.

The religions are not bad, but theists refuse to follow their own bibles.

This makes no sense.. What is theology?
To me, it is about analysing belief systems / creeds.
What has that got to do with global warming and political leadership?

 

[firedragon]

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Wikipedia

FOUR HORSEMEN:

1. Pestilence (white)(kill by sword, famine, plague (plague is in some bible translations).

2. War (red)

3. Famine (black)

4. Death (pale)

PSYCHIC INTERPRETATION:

The four horsemen warnings in the bible were conveyed by God to (presumably) Saint Thomas the Divine, then written into the bible in a chapter called Revelation.

Psychic information appears as sight, sound, touch, and knowledge somehow plucked out of the air. This is because we have eyes, and a part of the brain to process visual stimuli, and we have ears, and a part of the brain to process aural stimuli, and we have nerves in our body to sense pain and touch sensation, and a part of the brain to process touch. But, we do not have a particular part of the brain to process psychic information (ESP). So, psychics sense visions with the parts of their brains that process other senses. This is why churches look like candles, etc. How, then, does the psychic understand his visions? Psychics, after years of practice, can interpret some (but not all) of what they sense. Thus, they can say that candles are churches. But, when it came to the complex modern communication network that allowed President W. Bush to form alliances in merely hours, ancient man had no clue how it actually would work, but merely had a vague idea that it will work in the future. Indeed, many nations allied with the United States in mere hours (many nations like France and Germany refused, since the US lacked evidence).

This explains why Revelation is so difficult to interpret, and why so many people don't believe Revelation.

Of course, the four horsemen vision is part of Revelation (a chapter of the bible).

ARE WE EXPECTING REAL HORSES?

No, of course not. As explained above, Revelation is written as a psychic interpreted it, and it is symbolic, not realistic.

GOD'S ACTIONS OR MANKIND'S ACTIONS?

These four horsemen will come as a result of mankind's actions. Thus, atheists will say that bad decisions caused the bad news, and theists will say that God caused it as part of his wrath. For example, it was a very bad decision for the Religious Right to mix religion with politics and settle on religious phony, President W. Bush. That bad decision created an avalanche of bad decisions made by W. Bush, himself. For example, W. Bush chose to worship mammon (money) more than God. God sees the future. God warns mankind. Yet, mankind defies God (wars, neglecting the homeless, worship oil money more than God), so reaps God's wrath (God told us so, and we didn't listen).

The world is a mess, and God will end the world (and all life) soon. This isn't because the bible is wrong, it isn't because Jesus was wrong, it isn't because God is wrong. It is merely because mankind defied (and continues to defy) God.

God said "thou shalt not kill" (is this one of the "Ten Suggestions"....no, this is one of the "Ten Commandments" and this is God's law. President W. Bush defied God, and had no faith that God would handle the terrorists in His own way.

Not about that.

 

[firedragon]

I doubt you are going to get more than opinion when it comes to religion but I was really trying to clarify your question.

No problem. Clarifications are always great.

But you are wrong. There are lots and lots of studies and books written on religion. And there are lots of data that you infer information from. Opinion polls prove opinions. Not even correspondence.

 

[Clara Tea]

Theology is not dishonest. They are honestly wrong when they claim atheism is dishonest. I've been atheist for a long time now and it's a sincere position. Theology is only harmful when it makes character judgments about atheism. There may be scientific drawbacks from theism as well. Other then that it's benign.

I've been accused of being a heathen, and an infidel before just because I don't believe in God. I think that kind of theology is harmful.

It makes no sense to let bad believers into heaven, and relegate good people to hell. Any God who allows eternal torment must not be good. Does it make sense to go to God's realm?

 

[Clara Tea]

No problem. Clarifications are always great.

But you are wrong. There are lots and lots of studies and books written on religion. And there are lots of data that you infer information from. Opinion polls prove opinions. Not even correspondence.

Opinions change with discussion and knowledge.

The cancel culture cuts off Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, free press, and free assembly. All required for free religion and required for the American way of life and the American dream.

We can't even discuss some medical condition in the world (I won't say what it is) without being gagged to silence. They say it for the public good.

Thank goodness we are in America.

 

[rational experiences]

Thesis is the O ology. About God.

Men's beliefs only.

Belief by teaching is I believe I know why the planets form exists created.

As you are only a human thinking standing living upon a planet.

Basic human advice theology is not bad they claim. As humans I am just thinking. Why I say the O ology is not bad.

Other humans say but it led to machine controlled by man and lifes destruction.

We know we humans told the story as we stand on earth as gods body O when God changed.

Why we know versus thesis I believe I know. To argue. Humans owned a proven experience science did not know.

As taking dusts already separated by mass radiation converting is not knowing.

Radiation the status converted.

You never knew God the planet and would be an outright liar if you said you did.

As gods forms are multiple as owned in one body mass.

Why we said no man is God and you never knew God the O body form as God the term.

Not lying as a human as God O one meant you scientist did not know.

We taught O the planet owning it's firm is unknown too many variables expressed by one existing natural body.

And science did not own space zero cosmic law why mass was holding its O God form.

Egotism is what science owned not God.

Gods form is firm.

English fought for the new shroud Jesus teaching acceptance. No rebuilding science temple in Jerusalem. Circuit Jeru in pyramid communications where it turned.

Why the firm was given a title order of protection of life. English teaching O which letter to evaluation A to Z English meant.

To be updated advised

 

[Clara Tea]

Not about that.

You didn't understand the complete and true meaning of your question.