The non religious ideologues, and their messages, or messaging tactics?
Or the False Religious ideologues, who have corrupted any Religion, to manipulate, or to corrupt, the Public with it, via their False Religious messages, or messaging tactics?
Or any Religion, when it's not being individually corrupted or manipulated to self serv, those corrupt or manipulative individuals, who (USE) any Religion to "falsely indoctrinate," people, with their False Religious Coup's?
When any individual uses any Religion, in a non Religious way, that's basically A Religious Coup, because when some humans want to control other's, they have to corrupt or manipulate something, to suit or benefit their individual corrupt or manipulative mindsets?
So when it comes to some and how they use any Religion against others, that's the difference, between those who respect any Religion, and refrain from corrupting, or manipulating any Religion, for their own gains?
Like Jim Jones, and how he manipulated, or corrupted Religion, for his own benefits, or self gains?
For the most part, the majority of Religious people, respect Religion in general, and don't go about manipulating Religion, like Jim Jones did?
If anyone has a problem, with any Religious building, within the confines of their own neighborhoods, then call the Police, or the FBI, and report your grievances to them?
Because when it comes to any Religion, and it not being used by those false religious individuals, to corrupt people with it?
The Public overall, gets to see the difference, between any Religion being treated in a peaceful way, versus in a destructive way, like Jim Jones did?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://ncase.me/crowds/
What is dangerous is the misinformation and the people who use it for some unethical end.
I think this says all.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Criticism of atheism"
"Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, findings in the natural sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the individual, or the assumptions that underpin atheism.
Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan[1] and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza[2] have criticised atheism for being an unscientific position. Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century "[b]ecause they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.
Other criticisms focus on perceived effects on morality and social cohesion. The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as weakening "the sacred bonds of society", writing: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". The father of classical liberalism, John Locke, believed that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish philosopher and statesman praised by both his conservative and liberal peers for his "comprehensive intellect", saw religion as the basis of civil society and wrote that "man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long". Pope Pius XI wrote that Communist atheism was aimed at "upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization". In the 1990s, Pope John Paul II criticised a spreading "practical atheism" as clouding the "religious and moral sense of the human heart" and leading to societies which struggle to maintain harmony.[3]
The advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist–Leninist atheism and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against "atheistical fanaticism". The 1937 papal encyclical Divini Redemptoris denounced the atheism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, which was later influential in the establishment of state atheism across Eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mao Zedong's China, Kim's North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Critics of atheism often associate the actions of 20th-century state atheism with broader atheism in their critiques. Various poets, novelists and lay theologians, among them G. K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have also criticized atheism. For example, a quote often attributed to Chesterton holds that "[h]e who does not believe in God will believe in anything".[4] "
The above information, Publicly speaks for itself.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In order for the individual, and hence the society as a whole, to evolve, the individual should always question their preconceptions and subject every considered notion to rigorous logical analysis. Societies that do not evolve fade away and die, giving way to societies that have better adapted to the changes in the world.
Religion by its design is not based on logic, but on a rigid set of ideas that are taken as absolute and unquestionable. Religion may evolve over time, but at its core it remains the same static entity. Religion is death of intellectualism.
Whether religion leads to destruction or not depends on the religion, on the society practising, and on the place the society finds itself in the global world. But what religion certainly does lead to is intellectual and cultural stagnation, lack of economical and technological development, and low resistance to tyrants. It is no surprise that the Western civilisation barely developed throughout approximately 1000 years, until the Enlightenment doctrine came and common people made a dramatic leap in just 300 years from absolute misery to the prosperity unknown previously even to kings.
Saudi Arabia or North Korea show well what happens when ideological dogmatism triumphs over logic. Is it more harmful than anything you listed? Well, ask yourself where you would rather live: in the US, or there. There is your answer.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
, who are you lamenting to with the below Atheist oriented verbiage?
"What is most harmful to the society is lack of ultimate respect for logic and its substitution for dogmatism."
"When the society discards the logical method, such as the one proposed by Socrates, or the one
(systematised, spell check, is having an issue, with your word)
by Aristotle, and accepts the idea that some things are just true and unquestionable - then the structure of the society crumbles, and it becomes weak and prone for manipulation by power hungry individuals, as well as incapable of progressing technologically and intellectually."
What I'm seeing, are some biased Atheist individuals, who appear to be verbally persecuting those who are peaceful Religious Freedom seeking individuals?
And, I'm not going to give a care, about what Socrates or Aristotle had to say, because some Atheists want to lament over their word's, and use their word's to platform their individual Atheist ideologies.
I respect Family,
I respect Adoption,
I respect the Law,
I respect the Community,
I respect Religious Freedoms,
and I respect those individual Atheists, who aren't persecuting those individuals who want to pursue their Religious Freedoms in a fair, equal, and unharmful way.
"Religion by its design is not based on logic, but on a rigid set of ideas that are taken as absolute and unquestionable."
"Religion may evolve over time, but at its core it remains the same static entity. Religion is death of intellectualism."
@MayCaesar, is any Religion telling you how to intellectually think, or how to intellectually live your life?
My guess, is that how you think, or how you live is based on your individual perception of the word, "Intellect?"
I've never witnessed in a Religious building, where logic, has been replaced by any Religious messaging, if that is maybe the perception, that you're trying to express?
Rape, Murder, Gun Violence Crimes, Abortion, and the other crimes, that some of humanity, has perpetrated against other's, is what the death of "Intellectualism," in reality looks like.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no such thing as "verbal persecution". Regardless, I have said on numerous occasions that I have absolutely nothing against religious people. But a lot of those people just have to keep bothering everyone with their preachings, and when that happens, I respond in kind.
If you do not like seeing answers that upset you, then you should not ask questions leading to those answers. You are the one who created this thread, expecting some form of discussion, I think, and I am merely providing an opportunity for such a discussion.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@TKDB does not understand what atheism is. So you'll probably be better off telling him that you are person that is not an atheist but just someone that doesn't follow a Theistic religion and does not have any Theistic beliefs.
However, by doing this you may leave him bewildered as he can no longer use the word atheist as leverage.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@TKDB does not understand what atheism is. So you'll probably be better off telling him that you are person that is not an atheist but just someone that doesn't follow a Theistic religion and does not have any Theistic beliefs.
However, by doing this you may leave him bewildered as he can no longer use the word atheist as leverage.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"TKDB does not understand what atheism is."
"So you'll probably be better off telling him that you are person that is not an atheist but just someone that doesn't follow a Theistic religion and does not have any Theistic beliefs."
"However, by doing this you may leave him bewildered as he can no longer use the word atheist as leverage."
(What does this language have to do with the theme of the forum ZeusAre42?)
It has ZERO to do with the theme ZeusAres42.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
The very definition of Atheism.
"atheism
Definition of atheism
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've stated many times simple logical conclusions that outline a discrepancy with the word religion.
First, religion is a word used in tandem or in context by people who throw everything suggested to be supernatural under an umbrella term ,religion, without knowing it's definition.
How can you assert what's religious without even understanding it's actual definition or etymology?
Christianity is not religion based on the actual definition of the word.
The definition of religion excludes Christianity.
Events are not defined as
1.thoughts
2.beliefs
3.contemplation
The word religion stems from the Greek word religio meaning deep contemplation or thought.
CHRISTIANITYS based on events, historical accuracy and legitimate evidence. You can't classify it as religion or belief.
Plain and SIMPLE.
You don't call adolescents adults because of what specifically defines the difference.
I've grown tired of the overwhelming ignorance of people who have no basic understanding of words or their meaning.
Jesus is God.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra