"With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?

[sagersager1]

The people who scare me are the ones who say i only do good because of god and if i didn't have god i would be a killer and a rapist.
Those are the people who need some real help because if they ever find out god is not real oh man....

Generally if they find out God is not real, they realize they're not as interested in killing and raping as they thought they would be.

Not only violent acts, I know people who HATED LGBTQ people, and when they turned atheist, magically, they loved them.

[John V]

Not only violent acts, I know people who HATED LGBTQ people, and when they turned atheist, magically, they loved them.

Nothing magical about substituting one dogma for another.

[sagersager1]

Not only violent acts, I know people who HATED LGBTQ people, and when they turned atheist, magically, they loved them.

Nothing magical about substituting one dogma for another.

I'm confused, what's the other dogma?

[DeistPaladin]

It is true that political, nationalistic and economic ideologies can also be dangerous and lead otherwise good people to do evil things. However, religion is still uniquely and especially dangerous because:

1. No "Reality Check".
With any political or economic ideology, there are promises about what should be expected in the real world. If you think cutting taxes for the rich stimulates the economy and creates jobs, you need to explain why the W Bush administration had the worst rate of job growth since WWII and the economy crashed. Now of course, you can rationalize away why that's different or doesn't count or what other factors were in play, etc. but after something has been tried over and over and fails to work, eventually the proof is in the pudding. That's how Communism collapsed without a shot being fired.

With religion, there is no proverbial pudding. It makes claims about invisible supernatural agents that can't be detected and promises about what will happen after you die. There's no reality check.

2. A Circular Standard of Morals (or "no morality check"):
Religion also claims to be the ultimate standard of morality. True, some economic and political ideologies will make similar claims but they don't have the backing of the Creator of the Universe, who's will is only known by the religious leaders. When your morals are based on GodWillsIt then anything that promotes your religion goes. Not only is inhumanity thereby sanitized, it's positively sanctified.

3. The Demonization of Others:
Religions that feature devils are especially dangerous. If you believe the universe is a struggle between ultimate good, represented by your god, and ultimate evil, represented by a devil, than anyone who isn't part of your religion must by definition be in the Devil's camp. If you believe your opponents are in league with The Devil, you are capable of doing anything to them.

4. The Afterlife:
What's a little murder anyway but sending your enemies to their afterlife a little ahead of schedule? If the earth is just a way station on the path to eternity, that kind of cheapens the value of life.

5. Hell:
The stakes are ratcheted even higher if the afterlife features a Hell that you are charged to save souls from. If you really do believe the unsaved go to Hell, than all bets are off. Nothing is more important than saving souls from an eternity of torture. So what's a little torture and murder if it means thousands of souls are saved? And if you have to torture an unrepentant heathen and murder him, at least he won't corrupt other souls and take them to Hell with him.

6. Monkey See, Monkey Do:
If you serve a god that tortures unbelievers for eternity, how can you think doing it on earth is morally wrong?

Not all religions check the above boxes. This is why some religions are more dangerous than others.

[John V]

I'm confused, what's the other dogma?

Loving people because they're LGBT. If they merely gave up a position of hatred, they'd love or hate or be indifferent based on people as individuals.

[DeistPaladin]

Loving people because they're LGBT.

I don't know of anyone who does this unless you mean "loving them" in the carnal sense of the word.

[John V]

I don't know of anyone who does this

sager does.

[sagersager1]

I don't know of anyone who does this

sager does.

I thought it'd be common sense to assume that "loving them" meant supporting the social issues such as gay marriage and simply not hating them right off the bat because of your religion...

[John V]

I thought it'd be common sense to assume that "loving them" meant supporting the social issues such as gay marriage and simply not hating them right off the bat because of your religion...

The point still applies. There are secular arguments against gay marriage.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Zealotry is the culprit. It takes a zealot -- Christian, Communist, Muslim, whatever -- it takes a zealot to justify evil with ideology.