Ridiculous to attribute this to the supernatural, given what we know about human psychology and neurology.
Cancers do go into remission. This is an example of attributing the currently unexplainable to the supernatural. It's intellectually dishonest, and silly.
If there were a god and he were to reveal himself and perform supernatural acts, then yes, that would be compelling evidence. So far this has not happened that we are aware of.
This would be compelling evidence, but a skeleton of a horse with a singular horn in the middle of its forehead would also be compelling evidence of unicorns. We haven't seen either one.
Beliefs? No. If I doubt what I see, I am not holding a belief. However, A and B would be exercising beliefs which are unreasonable.
Cases 3 and 4 would be compelling,, supporting evidence.
A and B certainly were.
I don't think people fall into your "classes" in any meaningful way.
Creation?
You act like there is something I could possibly show or say to you to convince you that belief in the supernatural is unfounded.
Yes, there are things that could happen, or that I could be shown, to convince me of the supernatural. As yet, nothing or the sort has been shown.
Absolutely not.
So that places you as a class C atheist. You find a seeing a vision in the sky of a man claiming to be God as sufficient. But I used to be under my own definition, a class E atheist. And my arguments for you being unreasonable in believing God exists if he appears in the sky is that Occam's razor would imply its far more likely you're experiencing delusions at that point.
What's more reasonable? To say God is actually in the sky, or that say that you have lost your grip on reality.
So that places you as a class C atheist. You find a seeing a vision in the sky of a man claiming to be God as sufficient. But I used to be under my own definition, a class E atheist. And my arguments for you being unreasonable in believing God exists if he appears in the sky is that Occam's razor would imply its far more likely you're experiencing delusions at that point.
What's more reasonable? To say God is actually in the sky, or that say that you have lost your grip on reality.
Ok, hold on. The hypothetical was that this was caught on camera, seen by millions, including yourself. Even then I said it would be compelling evidence, not proof.
In this new hypothetical that you propose, I would absolutely agree that it is much more likely that you've had a psychological breakdown.
Ok, hold on. The hypothetical was that this was caught on camera, seen by millions, including yourself. Even then I said it would be compelling evidence, not proof.
In this new hypothetical that you propose, I would absolutely agree that it is much more likely that you've had a psychological breakdown.
Yes. But how would you be able to tell them apart?
A vision where you see God means you have an intellectual breakdown.
But a vision where you see God, and you also "envision" it being caught on camera means proof of God?
Yes. But how would you be able to tell them apart?
A vision where you see God means you have an intellectual breakdown.
But a vision where you see God, and you also "envision" it being caught on camera means proof of God?
You know the saying. Reasonable people can disagree. It would be silly to think otherwise--that what constitutes "reasonable"-is so narrow it must fit only one person's views. Reasonable people can have points of disagreement in degrees that are rather profound.
And just as this is the case, reasonable people can have differing, even arbitrary points where they become sufficiently convinced by evidence.
What is convincing for one person, may not be convincing for another person. (if you ever get the chance, watch the movie twelve angry men, and decide at which point the jurors if any become unreasonable)
You say if you saw news evidence, corroborated by a man in the sky claiming to be God, among other forms of corroboration--that such would be enough to convince you.
But I myself was an atheist of an even more skeptical stripe. I'll admit my hypothetical may have been a bit inartfully worded. But I know I myself back in those days, had I seen such things, would still remain skeptical of God existing.
I would either have believed that my perception of reality itself had been compromised, or that which appeared to be so convincing a phenomena was in itself a skillful production of capable groups with agendas. Both would be more rationally likely than the visual truth before my eyes.
You misunderstand. You can have evidence for something and still be skeptical, without being intellectually dishonest. I would still be skeptical, while acknowledging that what I, and the world, had just seen was extraordinary.
Atheists always try to convert theists because they are convinced they are right.
Swap that a little: (Theists) always try to convert (atheists) because they are convinced they are right.
From what I have seen, theists tend to get defensive when questioning their religion, and that is one reason why my grandmother always sends me these bogus e-mails (brilliant Christian student outsmarts evil atheist professor) with a story about how Christianity has been proven by (in this example) comparing the professor never seeing God and not believing in it and him never seeing his brain (therefore that doesn't exist too, right?).
And to atheists indoctrinating their children in their beliefs (or non-beliefs, as it were)? My atheist friends haven't experienced this. Religion isn't brought up; it is for them to decide. And with an open and educated mind, they find the whole idea ridiculous. On the other hand, which household is the one where beliefs are forced since birth? The religious one. I am 17, and for just about every one of those 17 years, religion has been forced upon me. The way religion is passed on down generations is almost like a paranoid person who believes the whole world is against them yet they know the key to saving mankind. Combine this mentality with the billions of religious families worldwide, and we have discovered why this blight upon humanity has lasted for so long.
And no, I do not feel like going out and raping and murdering because I have no God to answer to. I do know what is right and what is wrong. You would not believe how often I hear that.
Atheists always try to convert theists because they are convinced they are right.
If someone didn't think they were right, the subject probably wouldn't have come up.
I'm personally leaning towards the agnostic side of things - Rationally I don't believe in God, but I have never been one for absolutes. 100% doesn't exist here. Forcing someone to accept my personal beliefs is silly, because if I don't have a reasonable answer to something, I'm not going to force it down your throat. 2 + 2 = 5, yeah?
I've yet to actively engage in the act of trying to seduce theists away from their religions and the topic rarely comes up among both theist and atheist friends. The general consensus is that it's your business whom you believe in, or the lack thereof. There are occasionally religious debates, but none with the intent of seducing one along a different path - just the question of religion itself.
Added to that, I've discovered that arguing with someone who is completely set in their beliefs is often pointless and nearly always devolves down to the same base argument. "It's God's Will" is not a valid answer to "Why?" ...seriously folks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
Yes. But how would you be able to tell them apart?
A vision where you see God means you have an intellectual breakdown.
But a vision where you see God, and you also "envision" it being caught on camera means proof of God?
As a quick note about the cases you presented earlier - don't forget about the placebo effect of prayer. If someone knows people are praying for him, it will actually help them get better. It just doesn't necessarily mean that the prayers were answered. I'm an agnostic, but under your rubric, I'd be a Class D or E athiest. I wouldn't know until that actual scenario happened, but I've already seen Cases A, B and I'm not a believer. I'm iffy on C, I'd have to be really convinced the light is telling the truth. I'd probably be a class E, mostly because I wouldn't trust the voice as the truth, and the literal truth of any of the churches that currently exist. I would, however, believe that the being in question has God-like power.
As for the current example, you are getting into the realm of being able to adequately define reality. Is your standards for what is real and what is delusion the number of people who believe in or experienced an event like that? Because group consensus is what brought us organized religion in the first place, and what reinforces it.
IAdded to that, I've discovered that arguing with someone who is completely set in their beliefs is often pointless and nearly always devolves down to the same base argument. "It's God's Will" is not a valid answer to "Why?" ...seriously folks.
I generally prefer "Why not?" as an answer to those types of questions. I am the type of person who when presented with an ambiguity will try to approach the problem in a way where the ambiguity does not matter. In a strange way even though I consider myself a Christian, the fact that God might or might not exist does not really affect my core beliefs.
Added to that, I've discovered that arguing with someone who is completely set in their beliefs is often pointless and nearly always devolves down to the same base argument. "It's God's Will" is not a valid answer to "Why?" ...seriously folks.
To be fair, someone who is set in their beliefs claiming "It's God's Will" in response to an argument is fundamentally the same as an atheist claiming "There is no God" in response to an argument.
But the reality is, if you get down to arguing instead of discussing then both parties have already lost.
Because theists cause widespread misery on the world because of the divine drive to be proven right. They have to save the world because that's what they're religion dictates. But they only save the world by making the world uniform and destroying what's not uniform. That's why we want to 'convert' Theists. Theists cause nothing but widespread mischief from a world-view ased on ignorance.
*their
Also, not all theists are bad. There are plenty of bad athiests too, I don't see why you have such a negative attitude towards theists. Take a look at this picture for example:
Just because there are bad athiests, does that mean we have to go out and convert them just like you have to deconvert theists?
I had an athiest friend try to deconvert me, he claimed "You're too smart". It's not about intelligence. It's about faith. Just because someone has a faith doesn't mean they're stupid. I've met stupid and intelligent people on both sides. You can't prove or disprove God, but there's evidence to prove that the events in the Bible happened, but then there are crazy people out there who try to discredit it. Take Zeitgeist for example. There are people who actually believe everything in that movie, just because they want religion to be wrong. Hell, there are people who believe Jordan Maxwell and his oddball theories.
There is your answer. The ingrained superiority complex every atheist has, that atheism is the only correct answer.
Didn't know I had this complex.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
There is your answer. The ingrained superiority complex every atheist has, that atheism is the only correct answer.
Please tell me this is a joke. Please?
The real answer is the ingrained superiority complex that every *insert belief system here* has, that *insert belief system here* is the only correct answer.
Dio is spot on. It's people that determine whether something is good or bad. Every belief system has good and bad people as adherents, but as people we tend to only see the bad adherents to something we don't believe in, and the good adherents to things we believe in.
Why do atheists bother trying to "convert" theists?
Most of modern theists are actively seeking the end of the world. They actually WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Man is now capable of destroying the world. Or life as we know it on Earth anyway (this is in addition to the inherent immoral and destructive nature of religion).
So yes, to anyone that will listen I denounce faith. And I get a bite here and there, and one more person at least have some freedom from religious mind slavery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Most of modern theists are actively seeking the end of the world. They actually WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Man is now capable of destroying the world. Or life as we know it on Earth anyway (this is in addition to the inherent immoral and destructive nature of religion).
So yes, to anyone that will listen I denounce faith. And I get a bite here and there, and one more person at least have some freedom from religious mind slavery.
Wait, what? What could possibly give you the idea that most theists are actively seeking the end of the world?
Wait, what? What could possibly give you the idea that most theists are actively seeking the end of the world?
I shall rephrase:
Monotheistic religions including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, and Buddhism have firm beliefs via their respective holy texts that predict the end of world. Not only is the end of the world predicted, but it is viewed as the best possible outcome.
If people following one particular faith or another are true to their faith, they will share these beliefs. I've heard people preach about the end of days and have heard others listening cheer.
And to be honest, since suicide isn't an option, if one truly and deeply believed in paradise after death would one not welcome the apocalypse with open arms? I would if I was empty-headed as so many of my peers are.
This is very dangerous dogma that can sprout in the mind of someone that has been basing their logical belief systems on fairy tales. When you are raised to believe in the divine, you can be convinced of many things being divine...like suicide bombing. Or crashing planes into buildings. Or detonating a nuclear bomb for the glory of [misc deity].
Now, I don't think most people following a religious sect want nukes to start exploding. But I know many await judgment day, look forward to it even...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Monotheistic religions including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, and Buddhism have firm beliefs via their respective holy texts that predict the end of world. Not only is the end of the world predicted, but it is viewed as the best possible outcome.
Make no mistake the world is going to end. Whether it ends in 2000 years due to intervention from a deity, or 2 billion (trillion?) due to the sun burning out and engulfing the earth.
If people following one particular faith or another are true to their faith, they will share these beliefs. I've heard people preach about the end of days and have heard other listening cheer.
And to be honest, since suicide isn't an option, if one truly and deeply believed in paradise after death would one not welcome the apocalypse with open arms? I would if I was empty-headed as so many of my peers are.
Ok... So, you apparently have a problem with people desiring and/or looking forward to life after death.
that can sprout in the mind of someone that has been basing their logical belief systems on fairy tales. When you are raised to believe in the divine, you can be convinced of many things being divine...like suicide bombing. Or crashing planes into buildings. Or detonating a nuclear bomb for the glory of [misc deity].
Oh I get it, because some people have used religion in that way -- all religion is evil and a plague. Got it. While we're at it we should get rid of science as well -- because religion certainly didn't lead to the invention of those bombs, or those planes, or any of the other things that religion used.
Know, I don't think most people following a religious sect want nukes to start exploding. But I know many await judgment day, look forward to it even...
Right, so why didn't you say it that way? What's wrong with looking forward to it?
When it affects their actions and the actions they take towards others, absolutely.
I don't think you actually do. You may (and probably do) have a problem when it affects their actions in a manner you perceive to be negative. But, lets say it affects my actions in that I am moved to give more to charity (and not Church, but some secular charity -- make a wish foundation for example).
You have a problem with that affect? You think its negative?
As you might imagine, I don't believe that it causes people to act in a positive manner.
But if I grant that it does (maybe there is a situation I'm not familiar with) I still have a problem with someone doing something for a bad reason. For instance, I'm sure there are atheists out there who proclaim atheism because they had some tragedy occur and got mad at god. This is a bad reason to be an atheist, and I would almost prefer that they were still believers.
So if a person does charitable work because they think they will be rewarded in the afterlife, I'm glad they are doing something, and will go so far as to call it a positive effect of their belief, but I would prefer they did it for reasons I didn't perceive as nonsense, if only because there would be a firmer basis for their actions.
Also, not all theists are bad. There are plenty of bad athiests too, I don't see why you have such a negative attitude towards theists. Take a look at this picture for example:
Just because there are bad athiests, does that mean we have to go out and convert them just like you have to deconvert theists?
I had an athiest friend try to deconvert me, he claimed "You're too smart". It's not about intelligence. It's about faith. Just because someone has a faith doesn't mean they're stupid. I've met stupid and intelligent people on both sides. You can't prove or disprove God, but there's evidence to prove that the events in the Bible happened, but then there are crazy people out there who try to discredit it. Take Zeitgeist for example. There are people who actually believe everything in that movie, just because they want religion to be wrong. Hell, there are people who believe Jordan Maxwell and his oddball theories.
The problem comes from people like Dawkins who uses a historiography that's bent on using "religion as the great evil" much akin to Marx's interpretation of "if only we got rid of y, created a world with x, then z world would be so much better" that falls under the French Utopianist tradition. Arguably the "rationalist Utopianist" are a problem aligned in the "good section," because that tends to give people in the "bad section" ideological fodder by taking that historiological argument farther and placing it into "action." Creating victim narratives with a huge paint brush isn't good intellectualism, especially with the argument that the Civil Rights Movement was a fully secular movement..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So that places you as a class C atheist. You find a seeing a vision in the sky of a man claiming to be God as sufficient. But I used to be under my own definition, a class E atheist. And my arguments for you being unreasonable in believing God exists if he appears in the sky is that Occam's razor would imply its far more likely you're experiencing delusions at that point.
What's more reasonable? To say God is actually in the sky, or that say that you have lost your grip on reality.
Ok, hold on. The hypothetical was that this was caught on camera, seen by millions, including yourself. Even then I said it would be compelling evidence, not proof.
In this new hypothetical that you propose, I would absolutely agree that it is much more likely that you've had a psychological breakdown.
Yes. But how would you be able to tell them apart?
A vision where you see God means you have an intellectual breakdown.
But a vision where you see God, and you also "envision" it being caught on camera means proof of God?
You know the saying. Reasonable people can disagree. It would be silly to think otherwise--that what constitutes "reasonable"-is so narrow it must fit only one person's views. Reasonable people can have points of disagreement in degrees that are rather profound.
And just as this is the case, reasonable people can have differing, even arbitrary points where they become sufficiently convinced by evidence.
What is convincing for one person, may not be convincing for another person. (if you ever get the chance, watch the movie twelve angry men, and decide at which point the jurors if any become unreasonable)
You say if you saw news evidence, corroborated by a man in the sky claiming to be God, among other forms of corroboration--that such would be enough to convince you.
But I myself was an atheist of an even more skeptical stripe. I'll admit my hypothetical may have been a bit inartfully worded. But I know I myself back in those days, had I seen such things, would still remain skeptical of God existing.
I would either have believed that my perception of reality itself had been compromised, or that which appeared to be so convincing a phenomena was in itself a skillful production of capable groups with agendas. Both would be more rationally likely than the visual truth before my eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlEr3P6zzM&feature=share
Swap that a little: (Theists) always try to convert (atheists) because they are convinced they are right.
From what I have seen, theists tend to get defensive when questioning their religion, and that is one reason why my grandmother always sends me these bogus e-mails (brilliant Christian student outsmarts evil atheist professor) with a story about how Christianity has been proven by (in this example) comparing the professor never seeing God and not believing in it and him never seeing his brain (therefore that doesn't exist too, right?).
And to atheists indoctrinating their children in their beliefs (or non-beliefs, as it were)? My atheist friends haven't experienced this. Religion isn't brought up; it is for them to decide. And with an open and educated mind, they find the whole idea ridiculous. On the other hand, which household is the one where beliefs are forced since birth? The religious one. I am 17, and for just about every one of those 17 years, religion has been forced upon me. The way religion is passed on down generations is almost like a paranoid person who believes the whole world is against them yet they know the key to saving mankind. Combine this mentality with the billions of religious families worldwide, and we have discovered why this blight upon humanity has lasted for so long.
And no, I do not feel like going out and raping and murdering because I have no God to answer to. I do know what is right and what is wrong. You would not believe how often I hear that.
Thanks to Rivenor for the art.
If someone didn't think they were right, the subject probably wouldn't have come up.
I'm personally leaning towards the agnostic side of things - Rationally I don't believe in God, but I have never been one for absolutes. 100% doesn't exist here. Forcing someone to accept my personal beliefs is silly, because if I don't have a reasonable answer to something, I'm not going to force it down your throat. 2 + 2 = 5, yeah?
I've yet to actively engage in the act of trying to seduce theists away from their religions and the topic rarely comes up among both theist and atheist friends. The general consensus is that it's your business whom you believe in, or the lack thereof. There are occasionally religious debates, but none with the intent of seducing one along a different path - just the question of religion itself.
Added to that, I've discovered that arguing with someone who is completely set in their beliefs is often pointless and nearly always devolves down to the same base argument. "It's God's Will" is not a valid answer to "Why?" ...seriously folks.
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
As a quick note about the cases you presented earlier - don't forget about the placebo effect of prayer. If someone knows people are praying for him, it will actually help them get better. It just doesn't necessarily mean that the prayers were answered. I'm an agnostic, but under your rubric, I'd be a Class D or E athiest. I wouldn't know until that actual scenario happened, but I've already seen Cases A, B and I'm not a believer. I'm iffy on C, I'd have to be really convinced the light is telling the truth. I'd probably be a class E, mostly because I wouldn't trust the voice as the truth, and the literal truth of any of the churches that currently exist. I would, however, believe that the being in question has God-like power.
As for the current example, you are getting into the realm of being able to adequately define reality. Is your standards for what is real and what is delusion the number of people who believe in or experienced an event like that? Because group consensus is what brought us organized religion in the first place, and what reinforces it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I generally prefer "Why not?" as an answer to those types of questions. I am the type of person who when presented with an ambiguity will try to approach the problem in a way where the ambiguity does not matter. In a strange way even though I consider myself a Christian, the fact that God might or might not exist does not really affect my core beliefs.
To be fair, someone who is set in their beliefs claiming "It's God's Will" in response to an argument is fundamentally the same as an atheist claiming "There is no God" in response to an argument.
But the reality is, if you get down to arguing instead of discussing then both parties have already lost.
There is your answer. The ingrained superiority complex every atheist has, that atheism is the only correct answer.
:EDH:
WR Gisela, Blade of Goldnight (HOLD/100) WR
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion (HOLD/100) WB
/notsureifsarcasm.
If not...then gee wow I didn't see the error of my ways until that group attack set my straight.
*their
Also, not all theists are bad. There are plenty of bad athiests too, I don't see why you have such a negative attitude towards theists. Take a look at this picture for example:
Just because there are bad athiests, does that mean we have to go out and convert them just like you have to deconvert theists?
I had an athiest friend try to deconvert me, he claimed "You're too smart". It's not about intelligence. It's about faith. Just because someone has a faith doesn't mean they're stupid. I've met stupid and intelligent people on both sides. You can't prove or disprove God, but there's evidence to prove that the events in the Bible happened, but then there are crazy people out there who try to discredit it. Take Zeitgeist for example. There are people who actually believe everything in that movie, just because they want religion to be wrong. Hell, there are people who believe Jordan Maxwell and his oddball theories.
Didn't know I had this complex.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Please tell me this is a joke. Please?
The real answer is the ingrained superiority complex that every *insert belief system here* has, that *insert belief system here* is the only correct answer.
Dio is spot on. It's people that determine whether something is good or bad. Every belief system has good and bad people as adherents, but as people we tend to only see the bad adherents to something we don't believe in, and the good adherents to things we believe in.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Most of modern theists are actively seeking the end of the world. They actually WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Man is now capable of destroying the world. Or life as we know it on Earth anyway (this is in addition to the inherent immoral and destructive nature of religion).
So yes, to anyone that will listen I denounce faith. And I get a bite here and there, and one more person at least have some freedom from religious mind slavery.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Wait, what? What could possibly give you the idea that most theists are actively seeking the end of the world?
I shall rephrase:
Monotheistic religions including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, and Buddhism have firm beliefs via their respective holy texts that predict the end of world. Not only is the end of the world predicted, but it is viewed as the best possible outcome.
If people following one particular faith or another are true to their faith, they will share these beliefs. I've heard people preach about the end of days and have heard others listening cheer.
And to be honest, since suicide isn't an option, if one truly and deeply believed in paradise after death would one not welcome the apocalypse with open arms? I would if I was empty-headed as so many of my peers are.
This is very dangerous dogma that can sprout in the mind of someone that has been basing their logical belief systems on fairy tales. When you are raised to believe in the divine, you can be convinced of many things being divine...like suicide bombing. Or crashing planes into buildings. Or detonating a nuclear bomb for the glory of [misc deity].
Now, I don't think most people following a religious sect want nukes to start exploding. But I know many await judgment day, look forward to it even...
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Thats probably a good thing, although it would be nice if you rephrased it in a non-inflamatory manor as well.
Make no mistake the world is going to end. Whether it ends in 2000 years due to intervention from a deity, or 2 billion (trillion?) due to the sun burning out and engulfing the earth.
Either way, it's not going to last forever.
Yes, and?
Ok... So, you apparently have a problem with people desiring and/or looking forward to life after death.
Wait, what? How is it inherently dangerous?
Oh I get it, because some people have used religion in that way -- all religion is evil and a plague. Got it. While we're at it we should get rid of science as well -- because religion certainly didn't lead to the invention of those bombs, or those planes, or any of the other things that religion used.
Right, so why didn't you say it that way? What's wrong with looking forward to it?
I don't think you actually do. You may (and probably do) have a problem when it affects their actions in a manner you perceive to be negative. But, lets say it affects my actions in that I am moved to give more to charity (and not Church, but some secular charity -- make a wish foundation for example).
You have a problem with that affect? You think its negative?
But if I grant that it does (maybe there is a situation I'm not familiar with) I still have a problem with someone doing something for a bad reason. For instance, I'm sure there are atheists out there who proclaim atheism because they had some tragedy occur and got mad at god. This is a bad reason to be an atheist, and I would almost prefer that they were still believers.
So if a person does charitable work because they think they will be rewarded in the afterlife, I'm glad they are doing something, and will go so far as to call it a positive effect of their belief, but I would prefer they did it for reasons I didn't perceive as nonsense, if only because there would be a firmer basis for their actions.
The problem comes from people like Dawkins who uses a historiography that's bent on using "religion as the great evil" much akin to Marx's interpretation of "if only we got rid of y, created a world with x, then z world would be so much better" that falls under the French Utopianist tradition. Arguably the "rationalist Utopianist" are a problem aligned in the "good section," because that tends to give people in the "bad section" ideological fodder by taking that historiological argument farther and placing it into "action." Creating victim narratives with a huge paint brush isn't good intellectualism, especially with the argument that the Civil Rights Movement was a fully secular movement..
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.