Michagan decides on Evolution, not ID

Can you be purely rational and still be religious?

Yes, by strictly observing the strongest of our accomodations between belief and social intermixing - the Golden Rule or it's equivalent. By it's nature, that would prevent people from imposing their beliefs on others, as long as the other person objected.

The use of criminality as a counter-argument is not warranted, since I'm arguing that both sides need to agree for this to work. When it does not, an authoritarian system of laws hopefully resembling the Rule has to come into play, in order to reduce abuse of the many by the few.

All I have to say is this: if atheism is the road to human enlightenment

If enlightenment means "how better to understand the physical world as we perceive it", you still can't ask this, since as Paleo argues this should have no bearing on whether you can act according to a scientific understanding of the world. If it means "better understanding of everything", then it's the wrong question - science doesn't tell us about irrational matters like "spirituality", and they are better off kept seperate. (Science can tell us about their neurological origins, their historical character and effects on other people, but it can't tell us about whether one form of it is better than another, or so forth.)

The modern formulation is that belief and science are two seperate pursuits. "Believing in" gravity is materially different from "believing in" the transubstatiation of the Host.

Paleocon wrote:

That being said, it is the message rather than the medium that folks will find offensive. It is not my language, but rather the very idea that belief is costly and faith is harmful that folks don't like irrespective of my crappy personality (or the scintillating personalities of others ).

With religion, you're unlikely to create much sway in a person's view (though I appreciate your new-found effort to take the high road) - it's when discussing other topics, the ones when folks are open to changing their views, that I fear your point (which is occasionally my point) may be shrouded behind other, less savory parts of your post.

And thanks.

Paleocon wrote:

Fair enough. I will make an effort not to enflame.

Thank you. I don't think anyone's accusing you of having a 'crappy personality', and you have an interesting and important point, one that needs to be examined and discussed. But I think you'll find that more people - myself included - will be willing to address the meat of your arguments if you use less insulting and dismissive language when making them.

As for everything else that's happened in this thread last, what, two hours? I'll have to wait to address that until after I'm done with work, you crazy quick typers, you.

Haakon7 wrote:

To address the Mormonism/Scientology issue, the great religions that now dominate do so because they offer the most comprehensive answers to those seeking religious solutions. They have shown the ability to provide a framework for individuals to adapt to change, and possess the intellectual and cultural heritage to make their lives richer. A belief that Elvis is alive doesn't do the same thing. It doesn't do jack sh*t for me. And so equivocating the two, in my eyes, is reductionist tactic that only does a disservice to both sides of the argument.

Sorry Haakon7, but this is just wrong on so many levels... the popularity of any religion is simply based on how the religion integrated itself into the cultures and populations they were born into. They survive as memes the same way any other cultural phenomenon does, and the popularity of any given religion becomes dependant on that culture's historical success in passing on these memes. Know any people who follow the Native American religions? It really doesn't have much to do with a rational, comparative decision making process at all (keep in mind, this is coming from a practicing Abrahamite). So Paleo is right here, those people who do follow a popular religion are throwing stones from inside their glass houses at other people's glass houses (i.e. Scientoligists, Mormons, etc).

TuYungTuDy wrote:

Sorry Haakon7, but this is just wrong on so many levels... the popularity of any religion is simply based on how the religion integrated itself into the cultures and populations they were born into. They survive as memes the same way any other cultural phenomenon does, and the popularity of any given religion becomes dependant on that culture's historical success in passing on these memes. Know any people who follow the Native American religions? It really doesn't have much to do with a rational, comparative decision making process at all (keep in mind, this is coming from a practicing Abrahamite). So Paleo is right here, those people who do follow a popular religion are throwing stones from inside their glass houses at other people's glass houses (i.e. Scientoligists, Mormons, etc).

Yup. I would take it farther and state that the ONE bit I find most Christians bring attention to when arguing the benefits of their faith is the Golden Rule. This is important because its existence predates Christianity by over 1000 years. More importantly, it is far better articulated in older religions (like the Jainists) than it ever was or will be in any of the Abrahamic faiths.

And once again, even if we can agree that faith had, at one point in history, a net positive effect on society, it is pretty clear now that the cost of it (especially considering that all of its benefits are available without the need for faith) far outweigh it. How much better would the world be without dangerous memes that allow otherwise compassionate people to justify banning life-saving medical interventions?

The time for faith is in the past.

Paleocon wrote:

And once again, even if we can agree that faith had, at one point in history, a net positive effect on society, it is pretty clear now that the cost of it (especially considering that all of its benefits are available without the need for faith) far outweigh it. How much better would the world be without dangerous memes that allow otherwise compassionate people to justify banning life-saving medical interventions?

The time for faith is in the past.

Ok, now we disagree. Religion is still being misused today the same way it always has been. It's an easy way to motive people to do things you wouldn't normally do. It's not the religion itself that espouses violence or ignorance, it's usually the people at the pulpit that do that.
You won't be able to see the good sides of religion on CNN, because the "benefits" are at the micro level. Religion provides many people the simple answer to the question "Why follow the Golden Rule?". It doesn't really matter who invented the rule in the first place. I personally believe that we as a people are not capable of being good purely from a humanist perspective, but need religion to reinforce the utility of the Golden Rule.

Hopefully aliens will invade us soon so that we can start working together on something for a change.

TuYungTuDy wrote:

So Paleo is right here, those people who do follow a popular religion are throwing stones from inside their glass houses at other people's glass houses (i.e. Scientoligists, Mormons, etc).

While I understand what you mean about the survivability of religion as a cultural feature and its inseparable ties from the success or decline of their origin civilization as a whole, my discussion was mainly from the spread of the religions as a philosophies, as a framework for belief. Look at the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire and then throughout Europe in the 400-1000 period. Or the encroachment of Buddhism into a China then dominated by Confucianism and Taoism, and then evolving into the Mahayana & Zen Buddhism schools. Or other examples where the influx of a new religion has displaced older, more dated forms of belief by providing an superior intellectual framework.

In earlier times, humanity didn't have the luxury of being able to compare a wide range of religious beliefs, for just the reason that you mentioned. Their cultural heritage was tied to a certain train of thought, and it was difficult to surrender that. That said, we're in an interesting period in history at the moment. We have the luxury of being able to spread the lot in front of us and pick and choose the ideas and concepts that make the most sense to us. Which I find amazing and enlightening.

Sorry, I prefer not to do blow-by-blow quote-responding, but I couldn't figure out how to respond to this without resorting to it.

Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:

All I have to say is this: if atheism is the road to human enlightenment, why is it that discussions like "what is right and wrong?" still can't lead to any sort of consensus? Shouldn't it be simple to rationally and logically deduce ethics and morality?

I think, in large part, the study of ethics in general is a secular, non-theist exploration of how we should act toward one another. We can very easily decide both individually and collectively at right and wrong behavior without invoking deities or their cryptic and often contradictory edicts. We may not come to complete agreement, but the process does not (and I would contend, is not at all helped by) require theism. In point of fact, theistic legal codes have a notoriously bad track record for providing functional rules (eg: sharia)

I didn't say the process required theism. I was just pointing out that atheism hasn't proven to be inherently superior in determining universal ethics or morals. Obviously, neither is theism. Both approaches have great (or is it bad?) examples of failure. I believe China was built upon an atheistic legal system, and as we've seen it's no champion of great human rights (and thus ethics or morals).

Paleocon wrote:
Yes, I have belief. It shapes my views on everything, not the least of which is ethics and morality. It's why I'm more of a socialist mindset rather than a pure free market capitalist.

And in both of the economic examples you picked, belief is neither necessary nor sufficient to be of either mindset. One can be a free market capitalist as either a theist or unbeliever. One can be a socialist with or without gods. It may affect the way you consider your morality and ethics, but how would you be likely to interpret your earthly morality if it comes in conflict with your "godly" one? If it is necessary for millions to die horribly in order for others to hear the word of god(s) (or be damned to hell), is it worth it? I contend that the very existence of faith (and only its existence) makes such a question ponderable.

Again, more generalizations. Belief does not necessarily equate with the need to forcibly convert others to one's beliefs. You are correct, belief is neither necessary nor sufficient to be of either mindset, nor is disbelief. However, my beliefs are what shapes my views on which system is better. The reason is because I look to ethics and morality being more important than economics due to my beliefs. But that is strictly representative of me; I'm not claiming that this is true or untrue of theists or atheists in general.

Do I get frustrated with those who wish to dictate beliefs to others? Yes. That goes for anyone, be they of any religion or be they atheist.

Paleocon wrote:

That being said, it is the message rather than the medium that folks will find offensive. It is not my language, but rather the very idea that belief is costly and faith is harmful that folks don't like irrespective of my crappy personality (or the scintillating personalities of others ).

Actually, your personality is just fine. I enjoy your contributions to debates, whether or not I disagree with them.

But I contest the core of your idea: belief is not inherently costly, nor is faith inherently harmful. They can be those things, but they aren't necessarily those things. That's not necessarily because of believing in a god or gods, though. Philosophical views (i.e. beliefs) that are driven purely by rationalizations and logic can be every bit as costly and harmful.

TuYungTuDy wrote:

Ok, now we disagree. Religion is still being misused today the same way it always has been. It's an easy way to motive people to do things you wouldn't normally do. It's not the religion itself that espouses violence or ignorance, it's usually the people at the pulpit that do that.
You won't be able to see the good sides of religion on CNN, because the "benefits" are at the micro level. Religion provides many people the simple answer to the question "Why follow the Golden Rule?". It doesn't really matter who invented the rule in the first place. I personally believe that we as a people are not capable of being good purely from a humanist perspective, but need religion to reinforce the utility of the Golden Rule.

Hopefully aliens will invade us soon so that we can start working together on something for a change.

Once again, I disagree that religion is either necessary or sufficient for adherence to the Golden Rule. If anything, the most eggregious violations of "doing unto others" were done in the name of one god or another. Even if we are to say they are even on balance, the very existence of "godless" nations that do okay should be enough to refute the idea that religion is necessary for morality.

Most of Western Europe is remarkably god-free and they tend to do pretty well when it comes to being excellent to one another. In stark contrast, countries like Saudi Arabia tend to do some pretty nasty things like beheading female relatives that sleep with their English teachers. Correlation isn't causation, but the contention that religion is necessary for morality is simply refuted by the evidence.

Just an thought, are the people that believe pure atheism can adhere to the Golden Rule, the same people who believe that free markets in a purely Capitalistic system will regulate themselves?

Hm.

(back to sipping my tea)

Jolly Bill wrote:

Just an thought, are the people that believe pure atheism can adhere to the Golden Rule, the same people who believe that free markets in a purely Capitalistic system will regulate themselves?

In my case, yes.

But I contest the core of your idea: belief is not inherently costly, nor is faith inherently harmful.

Well, but belief is inherently costly, if it requires you to dedicate time to ritual behaviors in it's pursuit.

Robear wrote:
But I contest the core of your idea: belief is not inherently costly, nor is faith inherently harmful.

Well, but belief is inherently costly, if it requires you to dedicate time to ritual behaviors in it's pursuit.

Many atheists practice ritual behaviors as a form of meditation and find positive benefit. Not saying that all rituals give the same sort of effect, I'm just sayin.

Robear wrote:
But I contest the core of your idea: belief is not inherently costly, nor is faith inherently harmful.

Well, but belief is inherently costly, if it requires you to dedicate time to ritual behaviors in it's pursuit.

That's really just the very least of it. As I've pointed out, belief allows for the divorce of one's ethics from the here and now. It may be possible for a person with no belief in gods to justify denying lifesaving medical attention to his own child, but it rarely happens and when it does, that person is correctly viewed as either mentally ill or simply sociopathic. If, on the other hand, he "believes" that he is "saving" his child through adherence to a religious philosophy (eg: Christian Science), he is afforded that homocidal luxury in the name of "religious freedom". That, to me at least, seems a pretty high cost.

Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:
But I contest the core of your idea: belief is not inherently costly, nor is faith inherently harmful.

Well, but belief is inherently costly, if it requires you to dedicate time to ritual behaviors in it's pursuit.

That's really just the very least of it. As I've pointed out, belief allows for the divorce of one's ethics from the here and now. It may be possible for a person with no belief in gods to justify denying lifesaving medical attention to his own child, but it rarely happens and when it does, that person is correctly viewed as either mentally ill or simply sociopathic. If, on the other hand, he "believes" that he is "saving" his child through adherence to a religious philosophy (eg: Christian Science), he is afforded that homocidal luxury in the name of "religious freedom". That, to me at least, seems a pretty high cost.

Again, you're generalizing with extreme examples. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way to my statements that belief is not automatically the way you make it out to be, but rather that it merely can be.

Even Robear here surprised me by skipping the part where I said that belief/faith can be costly or harmful, but that it doesn't automatically mean that belief/faith is inherently costly or harmful.

You'll note that I'm not lumping atheists in with generalizations about the way all atheism is (good or bad). It's a pity the respect isn't going both ways here, and I've reached my tolerance limit for the overzealous anti-theism ranting in every damn thread on the P&C forum that even remotely has to do with religion/faith/belief.

[edit]and really now, if you want proof that belief doesn't necessarily make one a wacko zealot, just look at the sig that I pulled from a post by Deva; I love that quote and it's been my sig for months!

Even Robear here surprised me by skipping the part where I said that belief/faith can be costly or harmful, but that it doesn't automatically mean that belief/faith is inherently costly or harmful.

No, I just disagreed. Any irrational ritual - and we all have them - that requires non-productive practices, as opposed to something like meditation that provides actual physical and mental benefits - is costly. But religions use ritual to reinforce memes through behavior. That requires taking time away from actual productive behaviors (even selfish ones like hobbies) and putting it into reinforcing the irrational belief.

This is not limited to religion, but it's a core practice of all religions. It helps make sure the individual is not likely to leave the religion, and is usually more likely to pass it on to others. Note that it's not necessarily *harmful*; but it does waste time, objectively.

I don't have any problem with people who are religious until they try to impose sect-specific beliefs on me. I don't think I'm ranting against religion here. I'm just describing a fact - religious ritual serves the purpose of reinforcing belief, and takes time that would be used in other ways (productive or not) and is thus costly, but not always harmful.

Ok, that makes more sense; I misunderstood where you were going with that.

Not all theistic belief requires rituals though.

I'm too tired to really add much right now, but I will try to do so tomorrow. In the interim, I will rebut a few points:

Religion holds a particular role in our beliefs because it provides answers as to the way the world works.

Actually, religion doesn't explain the way the world works, it provides a framework for why it works the way it does. A subtle difference perhaps, but an important one.

I just don't like fundamentalism of any kind. Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Secular Humanist, etc. Because being a fundamentalist means that you know you have all the answers and thus don't have to engage in constructive debate of any kind. That kind of kills our ability as a society to progress.

I would seperate Judaism and Christianity from your pile there. Both of those religions actively challenge their believers to question their beliefs. Christianity embraces logic and deductive reasoning as the path to enlightenment. Christianity's basic axiom is that greater understanding of God can be gained over time and that even established doctrines can undergo radical revisions.

I contend that faith is another we should reject.

You mean faith you don't agree with. You take innumerable things on faith every day. In fact, I would argue that your atheism is faith as well. You put faith in science and math, but science and math both rely on faith. You can't prove any of the tools of science - the laws of logic, the Law of Causalty, the Principle of Uniformity, reliability of observation, etc. - by running an experiment. They exist outside the scientific method. You have faith those things are true in order to do the experiment.

Why does 2+2 equal 4? It just is.

You can't reject faith because reason cannot exist without faith. Why does your faith in an unprovable (i.e. your atheism) have more merit than another's faith (in God)? You might not like the byproducts of someone else's faith, but dismissing Faith completely is irrational.

JMJ wrote:

In fact, I would argue that your atheism is faith as well. You put faith in science and math, but science and math both rely on faith. You can't prove any of the tools of science - the laws of logic, the Law of Causalty, the Principle of Uniformity, reliability of observation, etc. - by running an experiment. They exist outside the scientific method. You have faith those things are true in order to do the experiment.

No, this is very wrong, and we've gone over it before. We've had a number of discussions of what "prove" really means, why induction is different then faith, and why basic math is tautological. If you feel math and science rely on 'faith' then you are using a radically different meaning of what the word means then is formally accepted.

Why does 2+2 equal 4? It just is.

No, it is defined to be so within a human-created system of mathematics and logic. If you care to, you can see one of the methods of defining 1+1=2 about 2/3 of the way down this page.

Just a note. But this was a primary study of mine in college. Frege and Russell were part of my regular night-time reading for a few years.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
I just don't like fundamentalism of any kind. Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Secular Humanist, etc. Because being a fundamentalist means that you know you have all the answers and thus don't have to engage in constructive debate of any kind. That kind of kills our ability as a society to progress.

I would seperate Judaism and Christianity from your pile there. Both of those religions actively challenge their believers to question their beliefs. Christianity embraces logic and deductive reasoning as the path to enlightenment. Christianity's basic axiom is that greater understanding of God can be gained over time and that even established doctrines can undergo radical revisions.

Incorrect. If you want, myself and others could easily give many examples of Christian sects not embracing logic or deductive reasoning.

No, this is very wrong, and we've gone over it before. We've had a number of discussions of what "prove" really means, why induction is different then faith, and why basic math is tautological.

Induction is drawing a generalized conclusion from specific instances. And something is tautologous if it is considered true by virtue of its logical form alone.

So 2+2=4 because it always equals 4. That is tautologically correct. Now, why?

Incorrect. If you want, myself and others could easily give many examples of Christian sects not embracing logic or deductive reasoning.

Throughout, the Bible teaches to question religious beliefs. It demands critical thinking not blind devotion. In those cases, the flaw lies not with the religion, but with the worshipper.

Farscry wrote:

Again, you're generalizing with extreme examples. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way to my statements that belief is not automatically the way you make it out to be, but rather that it merely can be.

Even Robear here surprised me by skipping the part where I said that belief/faith can be costly or harmful, but that it doesn't automatically mean that belief/faith is inherently costly or harmful.

You'll note that I'm not lumping atheists in with generalizations about the way all atheism is (good or bad). It's a pity the respect isn't going both ways here, and I've reached my tolerance limit for the overzealous anti-theism ranting in every damn thread on the P&C forum that even remotely has to do with religion/faith/belief.

[edit]and really now, if you want proof that belief doesn't necessarily make one a wacko zealot, just look at the sig that I pulled from a post by Deva; I love that quote and it's been my sig for months! ;)

You keep saying that they are extreme examples and that somehow the majority of the faithful do not hold beliefs that are costly or harmful, but when 42% of Americans state that they hold Young Earth Creationist beliefs, it is hard to see how faith does NOT (even in the mainstream) come at tremendous cost. How "extreme" are beliefs when nearly half of the religious hold them?

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
Incorrect. If you want, myself and others could easily give many examples of Christian sects not embracing logic or deductive reasoning.

Throughout, the Bible teaches to question religious beliefs. It demands critical thinking not blind devotion. In those cases, the flaw lies not with the religion, but with the worshipper.

When 90% of the worshippers are "wrong", the problem is with the religion. In fact, your opinion of logic in reasoning being present in Christianity seems to be a one of the minority. Even among believers.

Let's take a few key items that many sects believe in which fall apart under both logic and deductive reasoning:

transubstantiation
Jesus actually being born on December 25th
people over 900 years old
all humans being a product of incest
resurrection

My test for the limits of logic for the Christian faithful has always been this:

If through the examination of all holy texts, considerable meditation, intercession with your deity, and conversations with holy men, you come to the inescapable natural conclusion that there is but one god, his name is Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet, would you become a Muslim? If so, what is the role of faith?

Paleocon wrote:

You keep saying that they are extreme examples and that somehow the majority of the faithful do not hold beliefs that are costly or harmful, but when 42% of Americans state that they hold Young Earth Creationist beliefs, it is hard to see how faith does NOT (even in the mainstream) come at tremendous cost. How "extreme" are beliefs when nearly half of the religious hold them?

It's rather frustrating when you respond to my statements with redirection tactics. I never said that the majority of the faithful do not hold beliefs that are costly or harmful. Since I'm not referring strictly to Christianity, but rather theism as a whole (which includes any religion, creed, or belief that includes the presence of some spiritual/divine entity, be it a god or goddess, or a combination of them, or some kind of spiritual hivemind or collective consciousness), I have absolutely no idea about the cost or harm of the majority of theists' beliefs. Nor, obviously, can you claim that "nearly half of the religious" hold specific beliefs.

I'm simply stating, as I have throughout this thread, that your examples were (since I could only respond to the examples you had already given, not the ones you were yet to give) specifically chosen extremes, which were not representative of all (or even possibly most) theists. I concede (as I already have) that yes, there are extremes, and yes, belief can be harmful and costly. But not that they are inherently so (though Robear's definition of costly is so inclusive that, well, it's pretty much true of everyone, be them atheist or theist).

Now, if you're specifically wanting to grind an axe against Christians, more specifically American Christians, then come right out and say it, and stop hiding behind "faith" and "belief", since those are much broader words.

I will contend that my beliefs are not harmful in the least. I am able to hold my beliefs, but yet strongly vouch for the separation of church and state, the free will of mankind, the need to separate religion and science in schools, and pretty much anything else that involves not forcing beliefs (of any creed) or forcing anti-beliefs upon people.

Care to throw yet another misdirection, or will you try addressing my main points directly? It's a conversation worth having, since belief is not a threatening or dangerous thing in and of itself, though I've run into those like yourself who seem to think that it is.

Paleocon wrote:

My test for the limits of logic for the Christian faithful has always been this:

If through the examination of all holy texts, considerable meditation, intercession with your deity, and conversations with holy men, you come to the inescapable natural conclusion that there is but one god, his name is Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet, would you become a Muslim? If so, what is the role of faith?

If so, then yes, I would become a Muslim.

Faith is a difficult concept to explain. It is malleable and an ever-developing thing. My faith is based upon what I've been taught (the formative years are certainly a major factor), which first led me down the path of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, the very sect of Christianity which you most abhor, Paleo. It says a lot about the continuing growth and openness of faith that I remain a believer but yet in many ways my beliefs are so far from evangelical Christians that most of them would say I am not a Christian.

In college, my eyes were opened up to just how narrow-minded and judgemental I was when the first people who became my friends and welcomed me were the core members of the gay and lesbian alliance on campus. They knew very early on what my beliefs were; it's not as if I made it difficult to figure out. But they liked me for who I was, and didn't rush that confrontation. I had no idea they were who they were, because my blinders kept me unwittingly clueless. I remember when I first realized, as we were all hanging out in Dave's room a couple weeks into the fall term, and somehow the topic came up. I remember being completely stunned & dumbfounded. We had a long talk, and while I am sure I made some inflammatory statements, and they certainly got frustrated with me at times, the conversation was very good and important, and really led me to question my militantly anti-GLBT stance.

That was the beginning of a long period of what I would call humanization of my beliefs. My beliefs up until that point had been harmful, preventing me from truly loving all my fellow members of humanity. I was hateful and judgemental towards those who didn't follow my definition of morality.

After that, I learned to be much more loving and openminded, though it did not require that I compromise those moral beliefs for my personal life. If someone wanted to know what I believed, I was willing to tell them, but I was no longer able to in good conscience push my beliefs on others, nor encourage the government to legislate them. I was still fundamentalist in how I believed that my faith required me to live personally, but no longer in my attitude at applying those beliefs onto others who were unwilling.

A further change came when I was faced with one who was like my old self who took over the Christian fellowship group on campus in my third year of college. This gentleman changed it from a non-denominational group that met for Bible studies and songs as much to share our different faiths as to encourage one another (we used to invite various ministers/preachers/priests from various denominations each week to speak to us on their church's views to broaden our perspectives, for example), instead making into an evangelical group that was out to convert the campus. He went so far as to dictate what the topic and conclusions of Bible studies were supposed to be to the leaders of those groups. I openly contested these changes as an officer of the group, but was overruled by the majority.

I left the group at that point, since I could no longer condone what they were doing. I was still friends with everyone, and enjoyed socializing with them, but objected to and could not participate in their activities, which saddened me.

The years since then have been less significantly eventful, but suffice it to say that my beliefs continue to be shaped by personal experience, further research, and lively and enjoyable discussions with many people of various beliefs. I am and will most likely remain a theist of some type throughout my life. I've experienced too much to dissuade me from the belief in a god out there. I will continue to refine my views of that god and how one's faith should be shaped and implemented, as I don't believe that one's beliefs should be static, as that implies that one knows everything there is to know and has nothing further to learn about the nature of the spiritual world.

It would be a bit too big of a topic to go into all the particulars of my faith at this point in my life, but I can confidently say that my beliefs are not harmful, nor are those of a great many people I know. There are also a great many people I know whose beliefs are harmful and fairly costly. But as I said a page or two ago, such is also the nature of various philosophies that are arrived upon by atheists as well.

Not all theistic belief requires rituals though.

I missed that on my first read. What did you have in mind?