Most atheist who argue about religion seem to do so because they believe that religious beliefs are somehow inherently more harmful than other kinds of beliefs.
Most atheist who argue about religion seem to do so because they believe that religious beliefs are somehow inherently more harmful than other kinds of beliefs.
Well I used to be pretty outspoken. I was raised in Mormonism. And it's funny how I seemed to be the only person that actually listened in Church. I was the only worthy member I new in my age group, by Mormon standards.
I mean, one of the qualifications is that you can't have sex outside of marriage... as if that's healthy. I mean... back when that edict was pit into place, people were getting married off at age 12. The Virgin Mary would have been something like 12 or 13 when giving birth to Jesus. So here I was 19 years old with a pacifists behavior but a thought process not unlike Norman Bates.
In fact the Book of Mormon not only says a worthy priesthood holder can't have sex outside of marriage, it says that sex outside of marriage is a sin next to murder. Here, take a look:
I think this is rather misguided because the problems ascribed to religion are really problems of power, rather than the belief being used to justify a power structure. For instance, slave owners who justified themselves using the bible by saying black people were the inheritors of the curse of ham were just using a socially acceptable justification and in real life did not care at all about biblical or religious issues. They were simply using common contemporary beliefs to justify themselves to people who did not care to do, or were not educated enough to do, their own research.
In the modern world you have people like redpillers misusing science and espousing scientism (biological determinism) to justify abusive behaviors. They do not actually care about investigating the relevant sociological issues, or even care to understand that the alpha/beta distinction is antiquated in animal biology and that wolf social groups are understood differently now. Yet they cling to bad science. In effect, they use descriptive propositions to defend normative propositions, then claim that their normative propositions are actually descriptive. The point being that it is not this or that belief that is the problem when it comes to human misery. Rather, the problem comes from a lack of empathy and compassion.
Edit: I probably wont be responding more simply because I am no longer enjoying the discussion and, as you can see from my latest posts, am getting more combative, so I will step back and not get lost in the discussion. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/39.5?lang=eng
It's Alma 39:1-5
Anyways, I was looking at everyone around me, literally EVERYONE, and thinking that if they had sex outside of marriage more than 5 times, it's safe to say they're the next closest thing to a serial killer.
I even remember asking my Bishop if he had sex outside of marriage. Then I asked if he did it more than 5 times. Then I asked, so, if I were to kill you, would it actually be a disservice?
Of course he talked about how killing is wrong. And my response was "So is sex outside of marriage.
Now, suppose you were a serial killer that only killed serial killers, are you doing a disservice? And comparatively killing off the next closes thing to serial killers, by Mormon standards, is that a disservice?
This was before the show "Dexter".
And the Bishop never answered the question. He just rambled on and on about how murder is wrong.
So I walked out and said, "I'd expect a serial killer to justify their actions if their life was threatened, even to explain why killing THEM would be wrong... comparatively, I'd expect the next closest equivalent to a serial killer to justify their actions and to explain why killing THEM would be wrong. And seeing as I'm the only worthy priesthood holder in your office, because I went through the necessary qualifications, I think that judgement is up to ME. Not you".
He mentioned how he was appointed as a Bishop and how that makes him qualified to be a judge... blah blah blah.
The conversation went multiple directions after that and I walked out completely convinced that no one has a fucking clue what they're talking about.
I found myself questioning my existence in ways I hadn't done since I was 3 years old... and I was 19.
You watch a child stretch his hand out to touch the moon and wonder why he can't touch it and you think "how cute. How profound". You watch a 19 year old kid go through something similar and you wonder what the fuck is wrong with them.
And... I really COULD HAVE snapped. I could have stayed in the faith and become rather dangerous person with a guise of friendship.
When I left the faith, yeah, initially, I fought against religion pretty hard, because I knew how fucked up I was BECAUSE of religion.
Ever since I left, I have never thought such fucked up shit, never felt an urge to do something morbid.
... Even today I wonder how inherently harmful religious beliefs are.
I think this is rather misguided because the problems ascribed to religion are really problems of power, rather than the belief being used to justify a power structure.
I think that's just one side of a multi sided issue, and it's not just an issue of two sides.
For instance, slave owners who justified themselves using the bible by saying black people were the inheritors of the curse of ham were just using a socially acceptable justification and in real life did not care at all about biblical or religious issues.
The Bible actually supports slavery... It even explains why it started for the Jews.
Just read Genesis 9.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
They were simply using common contemporary beliefs to justify themselves to people who did not care to do, or were not educated enough to do, their own research.
... They did research I to the Bible. The supreme book of Knowledge. The "Good" book. The "Word of God".... the only book, to them, that ever mattered.
In the modern world you have people like redpillers misusing science and espousing scientism (biological determinism) to justify abusive behaviors.
Who? What?
This?
http://gradid.net/projects/redpillars-design-for-disaster/
WHAT?
They do not actually care about investigating the relevant sociological issues, or even care to understand that the alpha/beta distinction is antiquated in animal biology and that wolf social groups are understood differently now.
You're probably right about some of them. And wrong about others...
But then again I don't know who redpillars are.
Yet they cling to bad science. In effect, they use descriptive propositions to defend normative propositions, then claim that their normative propositions are actually descriptive. The point being that it is not this or that belief that is the problem when it comes to human misery. Rather, the problem comes from a lack of empathy and compassion.
Still have no idea...
Edit: I probably wont be responding more simply because I am no longer enjoying the discussion and, as you can see from my latest posts, am getting more combative, so I will step back and not get lost in the discussion.
... okay so half of what you said made no sense.