Danielle,

Directly or indirectly, religious belief always effects others and damages society to one degree or another.

<<Apart from any intellectual difference, what does it matter what others believe if it does not effect one, nor damage society.>>

I answer this in-depth over the following three responses: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151500, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151561, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178700.

Long story short, there is no such thing as a completely benign belief. We don't live in a vacuum. Our beliefs inform our actions and our actions have consequences. Even the most private religious belief can have negative effects, because when we believe something for bad reasons, we then run the risk of holding other beliefs for bad reasons; other beliefs that may have more detrimental effects.

We should always make an effort to have as many true beliefs as possible and eliminate as many false ones as we can. But when we hold a lack of evidence up as a virtue (i.e. faith), it makes doing that really hard.

<<But it is always a fruitless task to argue with someone committed to a religion.>>

This isn't always the case. The deconversion section of Dawkins' website has hundreds of stories of people seeing reason. The Atheist Community of Austin has, through their show, helped literally thousands around the world escape the irrationality of religious belief. I, myself, have even helped a couple of people break free from it. You'd be surprised how often it happens.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<So are you saying that anyone who can eliminate their mind and ego (whatever that means) is morally justified in inflicting evil?>>

I am saying that one who eliminated their mind and ego CANNOT do evil.

To begin with, because evil is a property of the mind, one without a mind cannot do evil.
Further, without a grain of selfishness, one has no motive to do evil: the motive to do evil, or even think evil, is fear, which comes out of selfishness.
Further, without the clouding obstacle of selfishness, one is free to act according to their true nature - which is goodness and love.

We rarely encounter people who completely eradicated their mind and ego, whom in whatever they do have no selfish intention: but a few such people exist and existed in history. It is indeed difficult to imagine this state unless you had the fortune to meet one of them as I did. Yet to get some idea, try to remember those in your life who, though imperfectly, were most selfless, full of love, compassion and forgiveness.

Now there's no guarantee that you will like/accept what they do. It's still possible (though unlikely) that you wouldn't approve of their actions, even consider them "evil", but then it would only be your own prejudice.

Morality is extremely important because it is the main tool for losing one's ego. Yet, please understand that those who already lost their ego, no longer require the aid of morality. Nevertheless, chances are that they will keep upholding morality, both out of habit and because they compassionately understand that it helps others who still have an ego, to get rid of it.

So far I held back the theological dimension. If you don't feel like discussing God, then please ignore the following:

The ego/mind is the main obstacle to God, so one who got rid of it is either very close to God or even united with Him, having realised their true identity as God. Thus, such a person will by all their actions only do God's will.

Dear Danielle,

You've hit the nail on its head:

"I would hazard a guess that not many of us are on the entire same page."

Then you ask: "I just don't understand the anger."

Apparently, some people are angry that others are not on the same page as themselves. Apparently some people would have liked everyone else to cooperate with them on their pet projects, such as building a human society, then become very frustrated when it doesn't happen (because others are on a different page).

AJ Philips has a valid point when claiming that "We don't live in vacuum", that "Directly or indirectly, religious belief always effects others and damages society to one degree or another.": One has only two arms, two legs, one head and 24 hours/day. If these are devoted to projects other than society-building, then society indirectly suffers.

But that is not specific to religion: the same old conflict occurs when some say, "We have serious business to attend to" while others who are not on the same page sing "Let's go fly a kite". Flying kites obsessively, though not a religion, has similar detrimental effects on society as any religion.

Similarly, the cult of society-building is detrimental to religion.
Some people who consider themselves religious get angry about it, but anger does not serve religion, only forbearance.

The idea as if the purpose of life is to develop a human society, which some take so seriously, is as irrational as the idea that the purpose of life is to fly kites.

Those who build a society know that their society will only last for some centuries.
Those who fly kites know that their kites will fall within an hour or so.
Those who pursue religion either know, but at least hope, that while their efforts may take more than a lifetime, their result is everlasting.
Now what's more rational?!

While we are not all on the same page, we are all on the same book: "The long and winding road to God". Religious people are simply further ahead on that book.

Thank for your response Yututsu. It was an interesting read and when you have evidence for any of it, I'll be interested to hear more.

As for your response to Danielle: you have once again downplayed my point by skipping straight to your, "But that is not specific to religion...", point without addressing the more serious consequences - in which I had both implied in my post, and specifically mentioned in the posts that I linked to - that ARE specific to religion.

That you said what you said in a post to someone other than myself doesn't make it any less deceitful and only comes across as an attempt to slip a rebuttal in through the backdoor in the hope that I won't notice what you've done.

aj..what you call 'rebutal'..is only..the beast mind[herd mind][ego]
or as the religious would call..angels[if good]..demons if bad.

heaven/hell are formed,,[or rather informed]..as much as creating/destroying..mostly..they seek simply companionship..[affirmastion..of herd mind..

[with/like mind..[or for like reason..thus..you get self seeing affirmation..[like say the ecumenical council..are they here to empower..or strastify..them/us

[birds of a feather..flock..together...but herd mind can be as few as two..[as jesus said..where ever two..or more are gat-herd..[in my name]..there am..i

i put it rather clumsy..but as a picture=1001..words
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf
[see the picture..on page 2o..then the pictture onpage..19
but the text begins at 18]
[6+6+6]=18