Is Religion Dangerous?

The greatest danger from religion is that it is utterly antithetical to free speech, and free thinking.

Let’s not forget Gerry Springer the Musical.

youtube.com/watch?v=N9EUe8jNr6o

Nor Life of Brian.

youtube.com/watch?v=CeKWVuye1YE

[size=4]Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and the murder of the Japanese translator.[/size]

The Dutch journalists murdered for cartoons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

And now Charlie Hebdo.

This is just scratching the surface of the horror. Religious indoctrination is child abuse imposed on millions of young minds everyday.

Al-Qaeda kills cartoonists because of derisive cartoons of the prophet Muhammad:

Therefore Al-Qaeda is dangerous?
or
Therefore Islam is dangerous?
or
Therefore all religions are dangerous?
or
Therefore all philosophies are dangerous?
or
Therefore the whole human race is dangerous?

All [if not at least 90%] dangers [evils] should be eliminated or prevented.
All evils of various degrees has their related degree of dangers.
The two main evils are;

  1. Secular evils
  2. Religious-based evils.

Religious based evils (since this is the religious section), are sourced from the following and the dangers are correlated with the number of incident of evils;

Abrahamic Religions

  1. Judaism -500*
  2. Christianity -200*
  3. Islam -24,800+ Link
  4. Bahai -50*
    Non-Abrahamic Religions
  5. Hinduism -200*
  6. Buddhism -50*
  7. Taoism - 50*
  8. Folk religions -100*

Figure above since Sept 2001.

  • Figures estimated to the best of my knowledge. Anyone has any actual?

The dangerousness of each religion can be based on the number of incidents with fatalities that each religion has committed since 911.
Therefore based on the above statistics Islam is a very dangerous religion while the others are not.

The dangerousness of the religions may also be based on other factors such as;

  1. Brainwashing of children
  2. Exacerbate negative instincts and fears in believers.
  3. Promoting “us versus them” malignantly and inclusiveness, superiority.
  4. Dehumanizing non-believers
  5. Hindering Science and other advance knowledge
  6. Scandals related to the religion.
  7. Intolerances
  8. Cruelty
  9. Others [to list here]

If the above are included with violent incidents with fatalities, then the Abrahamic religions are dangerous relatively the others.

Are you joking? I really hope you’re joking, pulling numbers out of your ass like that…

Religion, the philosophy of ignorance.

I thought seeing you make a thread about Greek mythology and approving of numerology, if you believe in these two, why not religion also?

Btw, I qualified that is the best to my knowledge, and it is a very conservative one.
If you have real numbers, then show otherwise and if justified I will change.

As for Buddhist related incidents, I can recall the ones in Tibet, no significant fatalities.
There is the few incidents by that Buddhist-bin-laden in Myanmar.
The Sri Lanka are politically and ethnically driven, i.e. ethnic Sri Lankas versus Tamils.
In any case, these has nothing to do with Buddhism proper.

As for Christianity how many incidents involving fatalities are committed by Christians on a religious basis. Abortionist killers? Bush may have mentioned God but America’s involvement in Iraq is purely political and not religious driven.

If you can give me actual figures I will change if justified. No issue with me as I will rate them accordingly.

people are dangerous

Are you fucking blind? How many more examples do you need?

Try this one!
theguardian.com/world/2015/j … ga-nigeria

Some pigs are more equal than others, and some people are prone to more violence against the freedom of others.
All religions are antithetical to free thinking.
Religions are, by definition, ideological and dogmatic systems of thought based on Faith designed to bind people together. This always leads to attacks on reason.

Why didn’t YOU post the real numbers? If you’re just going to admit you pulled the numbers out of your ass and not try and back them up with statistical data, why even post anything?

A Christian or a Muslim for example might come here and pull different numbers out of his ass. In the end, to determine the truth, you’d have to appeal to actual statistics anyway, so why not just search for them and post them in the first place to avoid people pulling numbers out of their asses?

I posted real numbers [24,831] re Islam which is significant. These numbers are based on various media resources. They may be subjected to refinements but the refined results will still be reasonable valid for our the OP’s purposes.

Perhaps you are likely to pull figures out of your arse.
I qualified the rest of the figures are based on my best guess and personally I have been very attentive to them over the years.

I have not come across such numbers for the other religions and it is probably because they are not significant.
If I were to research for them since 911, it may take me 6 months to come up with comparable numbers from other religion.

Since it is a current news item I brought up the issue for attention by comparing Islamic inspired violence with other religions.
Frankly if you read wide and are attentive to such elements you will agree [intuitively not factually] with my estimations.

In addition, I am asking whether anyone has the ‘real’ [reasonable] numbers [perhaps there are]

Btw, there is nothing wrong with expression an opinion in a philosophical forum and especially a qualified opinion.
It is wrong if one were insist an opinion as fact, example ‘God exists’ is fact and real.

This number is meaningless bullshit, and only a juvenile would keep linking it.

A single day’s napalm raid on Ho Chi Minh City, by the USA, caused more death and destruction that all of those claimed terrorist attacks put together.

Try this one.

Mao - 65 million
Stalin - 20 million

Based on all the evidence, I gotta vote with Turtle. All people are potentially dangerous.

I think your views above are more juvenile in not seeing the relevance of the above statistics to the OP.

Your USA-Vietnam War political claim is going off topic from your own OP which is specific to religion. What are you doing that? This is obviously more juvenile.

Amongst other variables [I have given a list somewhere], the most significant is the above, i.e. incidents involving fatalities that is linked to a religion.
Note the number represent the number of incidents [not number of fatalities to date] that has at least one fatality.
I am not saying this statistics should be the final conclusion, but it is a good start for us to get into the details.

I rely on this list because it is the only one that has some degree of reliability.
See the Notes on this statistic;
thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

Meanwhile I am trying to gather reasonable statistics for the other main religions to make my comparison more credible.

I think any strain of thought can be dangerous when carried too far out of context. I’ve found as much stifling of free speech and free thought throughout various places in life, throughout various different avenues. I find it, worst yet, at the hand of our fellow man who may or may not belong to any group at all. I find it everywhere, the stifling of creativity. To state that religion or any grouping of men is dangerous is to summarily accept the fact that men are far more dangerous still for lack of proper blame being placed for the creation or corruption of any grouping and the effects it has all had on the world around us. The atom was split with the best of intentions, unleashing the force of the universe upon an unready civilization, and yet the best intentions were not utilized by the men surrounding the genius that did so.

It is the trademark I’ve seen throughout everything: those who abuse power never consider an alternative to such until bested by such a person who rose above such abuse and corruption to adequately use their power for the right reason. That religion holds power in the world is obvious, whether the power stagnates or not. People use that power every day for a variety of reasons, not all benevolent and not all with the best of intentions. Power is power. It is not good or evil regardless of danger and all things are dangerous when misunderstood and underestimated; and feared for such misunderstanding of and underestimation, to the point of driving people to overestimate an exaggerated version of reality for themselves where they can claim and point out a trademark of all living things as a calling card of a singular thing even if that singular thing is comprised of a multitude of parts and sections.

A single man can do more damage and be far dangerous than a whole set of ideals and morals and values and beliefs and this has been proven time and again throughout history. And yet, still at other parts of history, men do need to borrow such power as they can to make the marks they make. All anti-religious people call on the power of religion, even in anti-thesis of that religion, to deny that religion and tear it down in front of others. Without the power of religion, such people would be at a loss for what to do as that power shapes and compels and drives forward. If not religion, it would be some other danger to mention and then another danger and finally the paranoia that comes from seeing danger everywhere, for it IS everywhere; not all that is dangerous is to be feared and yet fear or awe or the combination of the two may be had in some shape or form regardless.

Tell me where any anti-religious person would be in their theology without religion to guide them. Tell me where they would be in designing their philosophy without religion there to shape anti-theology from. I know where a goods many atheists draw their theology from and it is usually from the nature surrounding them; the world surrounding them; and they care little for who judges them for it, though you similarly don’t see much conversation from them for they are more content and would not need to discuss such with negative individuals; they would have far less drive to do so than someone who is caught in religion or the anti-thesis of such, since a true atheist is able to entertain the notion that the religion may on some level be at least partly right.

In the modern age, such organizations are bloated beyond measure and their implosive danger becomes obvious; even explosive danger for some as they are more chaotic in nature than others.

Greek and Egypt are interesting. I like to look into possibilities, this does not mean I believe them.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle

I assume with your comment that you do not have the mark?
What does religion have to do with that? They aren’t world threatening interests, like religion is. So I fail to see your point.

Also, which thread are you on about?

The number killed by the US invasion of Iraq is responsible for more death.
THe war between communism and capitalism as defined by the US in Vietnam was religious in all but name.

Note I mentioned the following in an earlier posts,

All [if not at least 90%] dangers [evils] should be eliminated or prevented.
The two main evils are;

  1. Secular evils
  2. Religious-based evils…

If the US invasion of Iraq was responsible for many and more deaths, it is covered by the above, i.e. all evils should be eliminated or prevented. Thus the world should take preventive measures and there has been in fact criticisms against the US invasion.

I don’t how you squeezed and classed in the Vietnam War as ‘religious’. This is the most ridiculous definition of what is ‘religious’ just like some define certain sports or habits as ‘religious’.
Regardless of whether the Vietnam War was ‘religious’ or not, humanity had addressed the atrocities therein and the Vietnam War was ended by public pressure, and there are War Tribunals to deal with war crimes.

If I agree with you the Iraq invasion and Vietnam War killed more people than the statistics I introduced, does it mean we should ignore the evils by Islamists [ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and others] by giving them a free hand to do what they like because the numbers killed are insignificant in your view?

The point is regardless of how you define ‘religion’ [I don’t agree with your definition], we still need statistics and numbers to start with.

In my case, my definition of religion is within the following;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F … evendi.htm
If I were to research into the evils committed by the main religions, I would definitely need reliable statistics and the only one available [not highly accurate] to start with is this [24,866];