Why the religious mindset can be so dangerous

[Ginger Ale]

How do you‘s people wonder why there is often antagonism to their mindset. What’s the harm, they ask, of having faith and hope.

Well, because the mindset leaves them open to all sorts of crazy ideas and wily politicians who can manipulate that gullibility to exploit them, and by extension, the rest of us.

One of the manifestations of this pathology is now the QAnon cult, which is finding fertile ground in the evangelical community.

How QAnon uses religion to lure unsuspecting Christians | CNN

Some Christian conservatives are falling for QAnon, which uses emotionally fraught topics such as suffering children to draw converts to their unhinged conspiracies.

www.cnn.com

After all, as Thomas Jefferson said,

“Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
-Thomas Jefferson

QAnon is bizarre. I'll tell you, with the internet allowing us to see into the minds of religious people hasn't been a good thing. I have always thought the religious groups were a bit strange before, but now that I hear what they're thinking, a secular country looks pretty good.

Faith in a God really does take the helm from the hand of reason. I mean, they can just make up whatever they want and then put it all into action, which starts to make it a reality for the rest of us. A bit scary at times I must say. I'm hoping QAnon doesn't bring their guns for God out on election day. Trumps going to lose, and they are relying on him to stop Satans followers from sucking the life out of babies. You can't make this crap up.

I recently had a friend tell me they believed QAnon crap, and she and other nurses at the hospital were going to refuse a vaccine for covid because they've been told it is just a method to control them from Satan. They won't wear masks when they're out because they think the virus is a hoax from Dems who worship Satan. It's dangerous. After she told me that I thought, ok, I'm done, next time I'm in the hospital I will have to check if any of the nurses helping me are normal or psycho because they could literally kill me with some virus while I'm recovering.

It's just bizarre.

 

[Valery]

were going to refuse a vaccine for covid because they've been told it is just a method to control them from Satan.

Think of the risks that comes with such vaccines. For an individual such a vaccine really might not be worth it, while the consequences could be detrimental. It is inherently fear and indifference that makes most people take them.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Think of the risks that comes with such vaccines. For an individual such a vaccine really might not be worth it, while the consequences could be detrimental. It is inherently fear and indifference that makes most people take them.

I feel for the older people coming out of surgery and being taken care of by a QAnon nurse or any other freaky religion who has refused a vaccine, running around unmasked, and putting these people in danger while in the hospital.

Why not find a job with a homeopath or witch doctor instead of risking people's lives because you are stupid enough to think they're controlled by an underlord?

They should stay out of medicine if they don't trust it.

Why would you think it's fear and lack of concern or sympathy that makes people take vaccines? Is that part of your religious thinking?
I get a vaccine so I don't have the flu or to limit its severity. I mean, duh. That's what they're for.

 

[Valery]

I feel for the older people coming out of surgery and being taken care of by a QAnon nurse or any other freaky religion who has refused a vaccine, running around unmasked, and putting these people in danger while in the hospital.

If a vaccine is necessary then the authorities will make sure all staff has them. If it isn't mandatory then their decision is none of your business. What right would you have to coerce someone to take a vaccine that can be detrimental.

The risk is small? Put it this way: if you said all the 300 nurses in a hospital must get the vaccine and you were told that they will, if you will sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by the vaccine to any one of them — would you sign it?

Why not find a job with a homeopath or witch doctor instead of risking people's lives because you are stupid enough to think they're controlled by an underlord?

Even a fool may want to be a real nurse. It is better that even the ones you deem a risk to order in society mix with those you deem normal. Call it balance.

They should stay out of medicine if they don't trust it.

Not wanting an extra vaccine unnecessary for one's survival does not equal distrust in medicine.

Why would you think it's fear and lack of concern or sympathy that makes people take vaccines? Is that part of your religious thinking?
I get a vaccine so I don't have the flu or to limit its severity. I mean, duh. That's what they're for.

You fear getting the flu so you get the vaccine because why not — you're indifferent to the possible harm and to the lack of necessity, duh.

 

[countryboy]

What does that have to do with anything what so ever?

go back and read his comment, and my response to it. If you don't see the relation, I can't help you. No one can.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's incorrect. Jesus was no liberal.

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.

When you claim Jesus as a liberal, you are putting him under the same umbrella as these men. But if The Lord were to come back, call you up into the mountain like Peter, James, and John, and bless you with another scene like the Transfiguration, somehow I doubt that, instead of making Moses and Elijah appear before you, He would summon the souls of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.” – Matt Walsh

Was Jesus a liberal?

(Updated June 11, 2016) By Pete Righter “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2 Was Jesus a liberal? Regularly, o…

righterreport.com

All I'm saying is that the teachings of Christ fall in the liberal category. Liberals more often attempt to legislate what would be considered programs that do what is consistent with the teachings of Christ than do conservative who more often oppose them. All else you bring up is distraction from that and does not refute such.

 

[ataraxia]

If a vaccine is necessary then the authorities will make sure all staff has them. If it isn't mandatory then their decision is none of your business. What right would you have to coerce someone to take a vaccine that can be detrimental.

The risk is small? Put it this way: if you said all the 300 nurses in a hospital must get the vaccine and you were told that they will, if you will sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by the vaccine to any one of them — would you sign it?

Even a fool may want to be a real nurse. It is better that even the ones you deem a risk to order in society mix with those you deem normal. Call it balance.

Not wanting an extra vaccine unnecessary for one's survival does not equal distrust in medicine.

You fear getting the flu so you get the vaccine because why not — you're indifferent to the possible harm and to the lack of necessity, duh.

There are certain behaviors by other people which effect YOUR safety. No, people should not be free to drive drunk or recklessly. Similarly, when other people don't get a vaccine or wear a mask, that is is reckless and irresponsible behavior which can effect YOUR health, and even life.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with the existence or lack thereof of otherworldly deities and their wishes. These issues, like most, can be discussed on their own merits.

 

[RAMOSS]

go back and read his comment, and my response to it. If you don't see the relation, I can't help you. No one can.

I see. you bring up politcs whihch has nothing to do with this thead. Dishonest to the core.

 

[Valery]

No, people should not be free to drive drunk or recklessly.

Both of which are against the law — refusing a vaccine is not. Seems the authorities aren't of the same mind with you.

 

[ataraxia]

Both of which are against the law — refusing a vaccine is not. Seems the authorities aren't of the same mind with you.

No. But why is it unreasonable to expect other people to behave responsibly for everyone else's safety? At what point is that just reasonable prudence and not tyranny?

 

[Valery]

No. But why is it unreasonable to expect other people to behave responsibly for everyone else's safety? At what point is that just reasonable prudence and not tyranny?

Because you're asking them to sacrafice their safety and because it isn't humane to inject people with stuff without their permission.

 

[ataraxia]

Because you're asking them to sacrafice their safety and because it isn't humane to inject people with stuff without their permission.

Vaccines are safe. NOT taking them is what is sacrificing their safety. Where in the world did you hear otherwise? Wherever that was, THAT's the kind of place that is sacrificing everyone's safety.

 

[Valery]

Vaccines are safe. NOT taking them is what is sacrificing their safety. Where in the world did you hear otherwise? Wherever that was, THAT's the kind of place that is sacrificing everyone's safety.

More serious reactions, such as seizures, non-stop crying for 3 hours or more, or high fever (over 105°F) after DTaP vaccination happen much less often. Rarely, the vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg, especially in older children when they receive their fourth or fifth dose.
(...)
Very rarely, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage may happen after DTaP vaccination.
(...)
There may be a very small increased risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after inactivated influenza vaccine (the flu shot).
(...)

• More serious reactions happen rarely. These can include seizures (often associated with fever), temporary pain and stiffness in the joints (mostly in teenage or adult women), pneumonia, swelling of the brain and/or spinal cord covering, or temporary low platelet count which can cause unusual bleeding or bruising.
• In people with serious immune system problems, this vaccine may cause an infection which may be life-threatening. People with serious immune system problems should not get MMR vaccine.

(...)
Intussusception is a type of bowel blockage that is treated in a hospital and could require surgery. It happens naturally in some infants every year in the United States, and usually there is no known reason for it. There is also a small risk of intussusception from rotavirus vaccination, usually within a week after the first or second vaccine dose. This additional risk is estimated to range from about 1 in 20,000 US infants to 1 in 100,000 US infants who get rotavirus vaccine. Your health care provider can give you more information.

Possible Side effects from Vaccines | CDC

Possible Side-effects from Vaccines

www.cdc.gov

I should pose you the same question I posed to @Ginger Ale.

The risk is small? Put it this way: if you said all 300 nurses in a hospital must get the vaccine and you were told that they will, if you will sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by the vaccine to any one of them — would you sign it?

 

[ataraxia]

I should pose you the same question I posed to @Ginger Ale.

Let me answer your question with another question: if you said there should be a 25 mph speed limit near an elementary school when school is getting out, would you sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by that speed limit, like for example someone trying to escape an ax- murderer?

 

[countryboy]

Dishonest to the core.

Yes, yes you are.

 

[Valery]

Let me answer your question with another question: if you said there should be a 25 mph speed limit near an elementary school when school is getting out, would you sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by that speed limit, like for example someone trying to escape an ax- murderer?

No, but that's giving someone liberty. You propose taking it away.

 

[Ginger Ale]

If a vaccine is necessary then the authorities will make sure all staff has them. If it isn't mandatory then their decision is none of your business. What right would you have to coerce someone to take a vaccine that can be detrimental.

The risk is small? Put it this way: if you said all the 300 nurses in a hospital must get the vaccine and you were told that they will, if you will sign a contract accepting all responsibility, both ethical and monetary, for any unusual harm caused by the vaccine to any one of them — would you sign it?

Even a fool may want to be a real nurse. It is better that even the ones you deem a risk to order in society mix with those you deem normal. Call it balance.

Not wanting an extra vaccine unnecessary for one's survival does not equal distrust in medicine.

You fear getting the flu so you get the vaccine because why not — you're indifferent to the possible harm and to the lack of necessity, duh.

I personally think this argument is immature thinking and we could go back and forth on this concept like high schoolers, but I don't feel it's on-topic enough to do so. I don't object to people refusing vaccinations if it's not harming others. Do as you please to yourself. I only care if your belief starts harming others and there is no proof of it as a valid consideration. As an example, refusing to mask up during a pandemic in a public setting because you feel the government is part of a Satanic plot to control society.

You seemed to have skipped my point which is religious people using Satan's interference as an argument for not wearing a mask or getting a vaccine during a pandemic, like QAnon or the like. Endangering others for your unproven belief in the devil's interference is something I think warrants attention. I will vote for mandates so that these people can either comply or find a career where their imagination doesn't put innocent people at risk. I don't believe in the freedom to be an idiot when it harms society.

 

[ataraxia]

No, but that's giving someone liberty. You propose taking it away.

I'm not sure I understand. They both restrict away individual freedoms because of public safety issues.

But how are these different that civil unions between homosexuals? The difference is that doesn't hurt anyone.

"The freedom to swing your arm about freely stops where someone else's nose starts".

And again: I just want to point out how we can discuss all these issues without having to resort to considerations of whether otherworldly deities exist and confident claims of knowing exactly what they want from us.

 

[Logicman]

All I'm saying is that the teachings of Christ fall in the liberal category. Liberals more often attempt to legislate what would be considered programs that do what is consistent with the teachings of Christ than do conservative who more often oppose them. All else you bring up is distraction from that and does not refute such.

The overwhelming evidence detailed in the following article shows that Jesus was no liberal.

"Some argue that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

But the liberals will protest, and argue that these are loving relationships, and God embraces those who love.

Does that mean that God embraces adulterous relationships where the participants are in love with each other? Not a chance. Adultery is condemned in the Ten Commandments. Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 above.

In addition, 1 Corinthians 13:6 makes it real clear that love and sin do not go together:

“Love does not rejoice in iniquity.”

And one more from Romans 13:10:

“Love does no harm to a neighbor.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor, such as enticing one’s neighbor into a sinful relationship that has negative temporal and/or eternal consequences."

Was Jesus a liberal?

(Updated June 11, 2016) By Pete Righter “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2 Was Jesus a liberal? Regularly, o…

righterreport.com

 

[watsup]

See - how are we supposed to even get anywhere when you don't understand this very basic point. If a creator exists... be it my Christian God or some other... morality would be objective because we would have a built-in nature. How is this so complicated to understand?

I may be remembering wrong, but it seems like somewhere back there you said that if there is indeed natural law, then there must be a creator that established it as objective morality.
In other words, first you go down the line by claiming that "if" there is a God, then there is an objective morality that establishes a natural law in humankind. And then you go back up the line by claiming that natural law does indeed exist and shows that there is a God.
Classic circular "reasoning".

 

[watsup]

The overwhelming evidence detailed in the following article shows that Jesus was no liberal.

"Some argue that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

But the liberals will protest, and argue that these are loving relationships, and God embraces those who love.

Does that mean that God embraces adulterous relationships where the participants are in love with each other? Not a chance. Adultery is condemned in the Ten Commandments. Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 above.

In addition, 1 Corinthians 13:6 makes it real clear that love and sin do not go together:


And one more from Romans 13:10:


Love does no harm to a neighbor, such as enticing one’s neighbor into a sinful relationship that has negative temporal and/or eternal consequences."

Was Jesus a liberal?

(Updated June 11, 2016) By Pete Righter “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2 Was Jesus a liberal? Regularly, o…

righterreport.com

Doesn't make any difference. In the United States, gays have the right to marry and to adopt children and to join the military, as well as all the other rights enumerated for any citizen.

 

[ataraxia]

The overwhelming evidence detailed in the following article shows that Jesus was no liberal.

So then poverty is not a moral failure and we shouldn’t leave poor people to die on the street until they learn to work harder?

1 John 3:17 ESV / 292 helpful votes
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

 

[RAMOSS]

Doesn't make any difference. In the United States, gays have the right to marry and to adopt children and to join the military, as well as all the other rights enumerated for any citizen.

Not only that, but Logicman is using translations that use words from the 10th century, and does not look at the ambigious nature of the original Greek words that Paul used. (and it is Paul, not Jesus)

 

[joko104]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao - why atheism can be so dangerous.

 

[devildavid]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao - why atheism can be so dangerous.

Atheism is not what motivated them because it is not a religion, philosophy, or ideology. They are examples of why political ideology can be so dangerous.