Religion sucks

[Playball40]

The benefits of religion far outweigh the (undisputed) atrocities committed in the name OF religion. Seriously!



In the USA? Reign of 'terror'???
I get it that youre running a polemic but a reign of terror?

...Religion is a big driver of division and discord in our country.

I thought religion was on the decline? Yes, things in the secular, increasingly irreligious West seem to be getting worse (social pathologies like drug abuse, domestic violence, racial division, suicide, selfishness, etc.) but are you sure religion is the correlation/cause?

... It is fundamentally racist.

The Hindu caste system? A big problem in the US?

... Without religion Donald Trump would never have even come close to being nominated, much less elected.

Communist States understood the problem with religion. And their solution was/is compulsory atheism.

... We’d have real debates on the efficacy of conservative and liberal policies.

'real' debates. LOL
No True Scotsman fallacy much?
Democracy gave you Donald Trump - not religion.

...Religion however demands that all adhere to its stupid dogma.

Nope. Adherence is voluntary. Notwithstanding your disbelief, many ppl actually do agree with the doctrines and dogmas they adhere to.

... It’s irrationality that’s raised to the untouchable level.

LOL.
Who did that? And how did they manage to do so? The age of reason never started because, for homo sapiens, it has always been the age of reason.

... It’s unquestionable, yet so blatantly obviously bullshit.

Not so obvious to me and several hundreds of billions of your fellow primates who have existed throughout the history of human reasoning and sensory experience. Do you know something we dont? Evidence for atheism?

... You’re not allowed to call it out in polite society, but proselytizing on street corners is fine.

Do you routinely see crowds gathering to hear street corner preaching? The way you 'call out' religion is by not going to church. The way you call out religion is by voting for atheists. The way you call out religion is by a handy little device called free speech.

... If you dare to oppose it openly you’re branded as unpatriotic, and accused of trying to outlaw religious freedom.

I'm interested in this preachy New Atheism which wants to openly oppose religion. I always thought atheists were 'non stamp collectors' who merely lacked belief. If you want to join Ray Comfort on the street corner and preach atheism - go for it. He would LOVE to hear your views and learn what you have to offer.

... Religion wants you to believe that a 2000 year old middle eastern zombie is the savior of all humanity and must be worshipped above all things. This despite his absence for 1988 years (+/-). Give me a fucking break.

Your disinterest in salvation and ingratitude to an all powerful, loving Creator is entirely optional.

...Religion teaches us to hate gays, and really anyone who disagrees with us.

I dont hate gays.
I dont hate smokers either.

... It tries to repress the most basic rights of women and effectively return them to the status of chattel to their menfolk.

Are you aware that women adhere to religion in much larger numbers than men.
Why is that? Aren't they smart enough to know that they are being oppressed by the patriarchy?
It's hugely insulting to women to accuse them of not being able to freely decide for themselves that God exists.

... It is also sexually repressive to men as well, forcing normal men to lurk around for sexual outlets that they desire and it comes out in unnatural ways such as with vulnerable children.

I could bury you under a mountain of bible verses which condemn sexual immorality. But if you want to talk about pedophiles masquerading as priests I think you'll find its the absence of religion which enables all manner of unnatural sex. (Disclaimer* I dont claim absolute certainty in the area of where the line is drawn between natural and unnatural sex. SSM advocates tell me homosexuality is 'natural' in the animal kingdom. But then again, so is rape.)

...Religion is against basic scientific principles. Science and logic and reason are the opposite of religion.

Nope. Science and logic are predicated and enabled by the apparent fact that we live in an ordered, designed state of reality the architecture of which is governed by coherent laws. Religion is the product OF logic and reason deployed by humans in their search for answers to existential questions.

... Religion cannot abide such competition.

Rubbish.
Religion faces NO SUCH COMPETITION.

...Thus it seeks to repress scientific education in the country.

Last time I checked science is helping not hindering (my) religion. Who would have ever guessed that science would give us hope that parallel dimensions of space time exist. Has quantum physics given us greater certainty about the nature of reality or LESS?

... You may not be able to teach creationism in schools, but just try teaching evolution and see what happens.

Evolution class only runs for about 15 minutes.
Lesson 1 - Unpredictable, uncaused stuff happens spontaneously. (abiogenesis, random mutations, blah blah blah.)
Lesson 2 - Natural selection. WOW! Amazing. Survival of the luckiest.
YAY - I just got my degree in Evolution^TM

... Same is true for climate change. We have failed generations of school children as a result. Trump is a symptom.

Climate change gave us Donald Trump?

...It is a death cult focused on some imaginary afterlife at the expense of building a peaceful and just society.

Existential angst has existed for as long as humans have understood that we are not in control of where we came from nor where we end up. Dont blame religion for human mortality. Atheism is as much a response to existential angst as theism.

... After all what’s 80 years or so of suffering compared to an eternity of bliss?

What a great question.

... Thus many religions shun medical practice for prayer.

Jesus' medical skills were amazing.

... What bullshit. For millennia people prayed for cures, but only science delivered them.

People DO pray for their surgery to go well.
But as CS Lewis said, most of the worlds religions came into existence and have been in existence for millennia long before the discovery of chloroform. (And penicillin likewise, was DISCOVERED by science - not invented by science.)

... Religion must be logically rejected.

No. Atheism must be logically rejected.

...Religion seeks absolute political power, and it has virtually achieved it, despite growing numbers of nones.

This is self-contradictory.

... The Family provides housing for our representatives and senators and no one questions it. Preachers preach politics nowadays from the pulpit and the IRS says not a word. They pay no taxes...

Taxing the church is false economy. Taxation would simply discourage people from putting money in the collection bowl.
Just you sit and watch those soup kitchens and homeless shelters start closing when the money runs out and then the State rather than the Church would have to pay for all those HIV AIDS charities that the Catholic Church now operates. And all those church funded schools would close and the fee-paying parents of those kids would start sending their children to taxpayer funded schools.

...and if anyone dares to question their status, well oh my, they’re against religious freedom.

Youre free to criticize publicly religion. But maybe youre just too gutless.
I guarantee you, religious people know a LOT more about suffering persecution for their beliefs than atheists.

...It’s now likely to impose its views via the Supreme Court now dominated by religious conservatives.

Nope. SCOTUS judges are wise, trustworthy and impartial.
They would never let their personal views interfere with their legal obligations.
Right?

...It is no accident that the KKK is a Christian organization.

Yeah, you see KKK uniforms all the time. They are so emboldened these days
...because their widely accepted religion is so ubiquitous.

... Heck, the Bible justifies slavery. Obey your masters! That is the mandate of religion.

"But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves." Luke 22:26

He sat down, called the twelve disciples over to him, and said, “Whoever wants to be first must take last place and be the servant of everyone else.” Mark 9:35

"The greatest among you must be a servant" Matthew 23:11

... That’s why kings and despots have used it for centuries to control their populations. It is a war loving institution. They all claim to be religions of peace, but only to those who bend to their particular brand.

Using God/religion to justify your own selfish objectives or politics is common

... All others must be put to the sword.

Jesus said those who live by the sword reap what they sow.

...Look at 9/11...

Yeah...?
A success or failure?

...or even the first and second world wars.

How can two Christian countries fighting each other be a 'religious' war?
Forget about teaching evolution in schools - stick to history. Or economics.
It's like you've never heard of The Treaty of Versailles.

... Not to mention the crusades. Really every war.

...and climate change, and the hole in the ozone layer, and graffiti, and my local pizza shop forgetting to put anchovies on my capricciosa.

...Yes religion sucks. I say fuck it.

And saying so here at an atheist internet forum.
BTW whatever happened to phands?

...I’m sick of these religious fucktards like Amy Barrett and their condescending shit. Religion should die. The sooner the better.

The three types of jihad (struggles). These are: the jihad against yourself, the jihad against evil/sin and the jihad against an open enemy.

... I just wish I could hurry it along.

Try to stay off the FBI watch list.

Suicide and drug abuse are not "social" pathologies. They are both symptoms of PHYSICAL PATHOLOGIES, mainly depression but not always.

 

[Brian63]

It's not the religion that offers community and purpose! Human beings provide those things.

Okay. It is humans that offer sense and purpose. I agree with that, but think it is a fairly nitpicky semantic point. It still does not change the more significant point that earlier in this discussion, moderate religion was credited for giving people a sense of community and purpose (and thus it does not suck), but it was never acknowledged that fundamentalist religion can also do the very same (but somehow that does suck).

Also, religious beliefs can provide people relief of existential fears about death. Yes, secular philosophies can do that as well. Saying the latter does not change the fact that the former does also.

Religion has not offered a single good thing to humanity that could not be had without religion.

Agreed.

 

[Angry Floof]

The benefits of religion far outweigh the (undisputed) atrocities committed in the name OF religion. Seriously!

Bullshit. Name one good thing that can't be had without religion.

Religion is not the source of awe and wonder, or of ingenuity, or of compassion, or of intelligence, or of empathy, or of inspiration, or of altruism, or of creativity, or community, or of civilization, or of anything else humans can create or experience.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's not the religion that offers community and purpose! Human beings provide those things.

Okay. It is humans that offer sense and purpose. I agree with that, but think it is a fairly nitpicky semantic point. It still does not change the more significant point that earlier in this discussion, moderate religion was credited for giving people a sense of community and purpose (and thus it does not suck), but it was never acknowledged that fundamentalist religion can also do the very same (but somehow that does suck).

Also, religious beliefs can provide people relief of existential fears about death. Yes, secular philosophies can do that as well. Saying the latter does not change the fact that the former does also.

Religion has not offered a single good thing to humanity that could not be had without religion.

Agreed.

It most certainly is not a semantic point. It's a fundamental truth of human existence that we create religion and not the other way around, and that we create community and purpose and religion is not the source of that.

Any ideology can shape your world view, religious or otherwise, make you less social or more, less altruistic or more, less empathetic or more, influencing us in many ways, but no ideology can be the source of our humanness, which is what creates religion and ideology to begin with.

To say otherwise is something like saying that the color of the paint creates the paint or the flavor of the food creates the food.

 

[Brian63]

It's a fundamental truth of human existence that we create religion and not the other way around,...

Keep in mind though that the type of religion that we create impacts us. It is not as if the religion we create does not. If we create a religion that gives priority to social isolation and unquestioning obedience, subscribers of that will give higher priority to that. If we create a religion that heavily promotes indoctrination of children, members of that religion will emphasize that. If we create a religion that advocates that everyone goes to eternal bliss regardless of what they believe or do during this life, those beliefs in turn impact the mentalities and behaviors of its adherents.

The way you phrase your point makes it sound like you think the role of religion is entirely one-directional. It is multi-directional though. It operates in a cyclic, reinforcing pattern as well. Religious beliefs originate with humans, but once they are formed they also have a reverse effect on their members.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's a fundamental truth of human existence that we create religion and not the other way around,...

Keep in mind though that the type of religion that we create impacts us. It is not as if the religion we create does not.

Why did you snip out where I said exactly that??

If we create a religion that gives priority to social isolation and unquestioning obedience, subscribers of that will give higher priority to that. If we create a religion that heavily promotes indoctrination of children, members of that religion will emphasize that. If we create a religion that advocates that everyone goes to eternal bliss regardless of what they believe or do during this life, those beliefs in turn impact the mentalities and behaviors of its adherents.

Why did you snip out where I said exactly that?

The way you phrase your point makes it sound like you think the role of religion is entirely one-directional. It is multi-directional though. It operates in a cyclic, reinforcing pattern as well. Religious beliefs originate with humans, but once they are formed they also have a reverse effect on their members.

No, not one directional, and I've said this time and time again over the years, ideology comes from our human traits and behaviors and our human traits and behaviors are influenced by our ideology. But ideology is not the source of human behavior or experience.

Do you have children? If so, you know that having children changes you in many ways that you would not have experienced without having children. But your children did not create you.

I suggest you read my post again and not snip parts out or skip parts. Yes, our created religions and ideologies in turn affect and change us, sometimes for the better, sometimes not, as I clearly said here:

Any ideology can shape your world view, religious or otherwise, make you less social or more, less altruistic or more, less empathetic or more, influencing us in many ways, but no ideology can be the source of our humanness, which is what creates religion and ideology to begin with.

Yet no community needs religion to be influenced by the ideology they create, BUT - and this is one point maybe I didn't make in my previous post - religion, by and large, tends to impede the process of intelligently and honestly examining the ideology and all the concepts and beliefs therein to determine if they are indeed beneficial or reflect the reality we live in.

 

[Brian63]

Why did you snip out where I said exactly that??

Sorry. I should also have included the part where you were vague at best and contradictory at worst.

You said: "we create community and purpose and religion is not the source of that."

It should be corrected/clarified that religion ***can*** be a source of that. Not the only source. But one of several possible sources.

 

[Angry Floof]

Why did you snip out where I said exactly that??

Sorry. I should also have included the part where you were vague at best and contradictory at worst.

You said: "we create community and purpose and religion is not the source of that."

It should be corrected/clarified that religion ***can*** be a source of that. Not the only source. But one of several possible sources.

I disagree, and I'm puzzled as to how anyone could believe that religion is a source of humanness. Our environment and evolution and life itself made us creatures that seek out community and comfort. Our complex social nature and intelligence and weird cognitive pitfalls and self awareness helped to create religion and all ideologies, but they didn't create us. Frankly, it's quite a bizarre assertion to claim otherwise.

Religion is a human artifact. It certainly does influence us, but just like art, science, literature, and other human artifacts, it didn't create us OR our ability to create such things in the first place.

 

[Brian63]

Religion...certainly does influence us, but...didn't create us OR our ability to create such things in the first place.

Right there is a summation of why I generally agreed with you earlier, but thought the point was rather semantic and trivial. Yes, humans create religion. Yes, also, religion certainly does influence us in return. We seem to be 100% on the same page there.

I thought you pointing that out was making a mountain out of a molehill. The point I was earlier making was regarding moderate versus fundamentalist religion. They both can at least assist to provide community and purpose (even if they do not originate from there, which seems to be the point you are focused on). Yet moderate religions were considered off-limits to criticism because they were believed to provide such supports, while fundamentalist religions were criticized even though they did the same thing. Why the double standards? That question was in response to southernhybrid's stances, and I thought you were exploding on a rather minor point relative to the larger one.

 

[Angry Floof]

Religion...certainly does influence us, but...didn't create us OR our ability to create such things in the first place.

Right there is a summation of why I generally agreed with you earlier, but thought the point was rather semantic and trivial. Yes, humans create religion. Yes, also, religion certainly does influence us in return. We seem to be 100% on the same page there.

I thought you pointing that out was making a mountain out of a molehill. The point I was earlier making was regarding moderate versus fundamentalist religion. They both can at least assist to provide community and purpose (even if they do not originate from there, which seems to be the point you are focused on). Yet moderate religions were considered off-limits to criticism because they were believed to provide such supports, while fundamentalist religions were criticized even though they did the same thing. Why the double standards? That question was in response to southernhybrid's stances, and I thought you were exploding on a rather minor point relative to the larger one.

I don't think you're reading either SH or me correctly.

 

[Brian63]

Okay.

 

[Lion IRC]

The benefits of religion far outweigh the (undisputed) atrocities committed in the name OF religion. Seriously!

Bullshit. Name one good thing that can't be had without religion.

Before I answer, do you consider belief in the afterlife to be an integral element of religion?

Religion is not the source of awe and wonder, or of ingenuity, or of compassion, or of intelligence, or of empathy, or of inspiration, or of altruism, or of creativity, or community, or of civilization, or of anything else humans can create or experience.

Agreed. Religion is not the ONLY source of inspiration for these.
But it's a major source.

Hitchens challenge - name one good thing a religious person can do but an atheist cannot. 6m33s

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/sOsKxVMvTXw?&t=6m33s[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Be a Christian hypocrite?

 

[southernhybrid]

Religion...certainly does influence us, but...didn't create us OR our ability to create such things in the first place.

Right there is a summation of why I generally agreed with you earlier, but thought the point was rather semantic and trivial. Yes, humans create religion. Yes, also, religion certainly does influence us in return. We seem to be 100% on the same page there.

I thought you pointing that out was making a mountain out of a molehill. The point I was earlier making was regarding moderate versus fundamentalist religion. They both can at least assist to provide community and purpose (even if they do not originate from there, which seems to be the point you are focused on). Yet moderate religions were considered off-limits to criticism because they were believed to provide such supports, while fundamentalist religions were criticized even though they did the same thing. Why the double standards? That question was in response to southernhybrid's stances, and I thought you were exploding on a rather minor point relative to the larger one.

I don't think you're reading either SH or me correctly.

Anytime a group of humans have similar ideas can provide an opportunity to develop community and purpose. The difference I've found when it comes to the more liberal or moderate versions verses the more extreme fundamentalist versions of religion is that the former is more willing to do positive works for their community, while the later is usually only concerned about convincing people to join their cult.

The best example I can give you is the church I attended as a child. It was a huge Baptist church in New Jersey. There were many wealthy, educated people who were members of this church. The church had lots of money but not once was any of that money used to help the poor, or do any of the better things supported by the Christian Gospels. Instead, the pastor received a big salary and the rest of the money was used to send missionaries all over the world to convert people to their fundamentalist view of Christianity.

In contrast, there is a huge Methodist church on the corner of my street. It is also made up of very educated, often wealthy members. But, unlike the Baptist church of my childhood, this Methodist church uses a large amount of their money for charity, as well as providing a gym for the locals, a day care facility etc. There is also an even more liberal Episcopalian church in my city. That church built a non profit assisted living facility as well as a nice apartment building for low income seniors. These churches are much more tolerant when it comes to how they view people of other religions. I was once friendly with a member of the Methodist church. She told me that one of her sons was an atheist and when I told her I was an atheist, she replied, "that's cool".


I see a huge difference in the impact of these two different types of religion. The more liberal ones are harmless and often provide needed help to the poor. The fundamentalist ones are only interested in adding more people into their cult. Some of them even want a theocratic government. That's not something that more moderate or liberal religious people favor.

While I may not be expressing myself as well as Angry Floof has, I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what she has posted in this thread. I'd like to see religion become more progressive, but individuals have to be open minded and want change. I despised being told what to believe as a child so it would be hypocritical of me to try and tell others what to believe.

Look at it another way. Just about every system, be it political, religious, industrial, etc. is an invention of humans. None of them are real, in the natural sense. So, I don't see religion being much different from anything else that humans have invented. And, like anything else that humans have invented, when things become too extreme, they are potentially harmful. I'm not even trying to distance myself from religion. I live in the Bible Belt. In my county of about 69K people, there are about 70 churches. I love my Christian friends. It's very unrealistic to think hat religion is going away and to me, it's wrong to try and discourage people from their religious beliefs.

I do stand up for myself when someone attacks me for being an atheist. But, this rarely happens anymore. I'd much rather that we atheists set an example by being decent tolerant people, not that we are out to convert people to think like us. That's a fool's errand and one that will only cause more division and intolerance. We already live in a very divisive period of time. I have no plan to add to that division. And, I can even like my atheist friends who don't agree with me. I've been an atheist for almost 50 years. I've mellowed a bit over time. I've accepted that religion can offer both positive and negative things to the world. If it goes away, it will do so without atheist interference.

Let me add, that I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm just stating my opinion based on my many years of life experiences. If I've learned one thing from being involved with several atheist groups over the past 20 or so years, it's that we atheists are never going to agree on very many things. That's not a bad thing. And let me add this. Whenever I attend a meeting at the Atlanta Freethought Society, I feel a nice little emotional buzz, which is probably similar to the way that religious folks feel when they meet. Humans tend to enjoy being around others who share some commonalities. We atheists are no different from other people. We just view the world a bit differently from the way those with religious beliefs do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do stand up for myself when someone attacks me for being an atheist. But, this rarely happens anymore. I'd much rather that we atheists set an example by being decent tolerant people, not that we are out to convert people to think like us. That's a fool's errand and one that will only cause more division and intolerance. We already live in a very divisive period of time. I have no plan to add to that division. And, I can even like my atheist friends who don't agree with me. I've been an atheist for almost 50 years. I've mellowed a bit over time. I've accepted that religion can offer both positive and negative things to the world. If it goes away, it will do so without atheist interference.

What happens when push comes to shove, knowing how tribally disposed humans are? The reason I ponder the question is I do not see any public division between fundamentalists and liberal religious people. My experience has been to observe that as a group they will close ranks rather than embrace someone who is openly atheist, even if such person is not militant in any sense of the word. It's the ultimate "us vs them" retreat, the survival of their tribe is perceived to hang in the balance, not to mention a lot of afterlives for being disobedient to authority.

But that's just my take.

Look how southern whites united around the defendants when Emmett Till was murdered. I'm sure there were lots of whites that sympathized with the situation but not much was heard. I think they were afraid.

 

[Brian63]

Anytime a group of humans have similar ideas can provide an opportunity to develop community and purpose.

But that is not enough in itself to declare it “good” or say that it does not “suck.” Do you agree that fundamentalist religions can also provide in some sense an opportunity for community and purpose?

I'd like to see religion become more progressive, but individuals have to be open minded and want change.

Agreed. In order for a person to change, there needs to be some desire in that person to change.

There are a wide variety of ways to do that though. They can include being shown that their current worldview contains a significant deficiency. Some flaw is apparent in it, and they do not want to live with it. If you make no effort to ever show any flaws to a person’s worldview, they are less likely to discover it. So they will be harmed by their bad beliefs, you will be harmed by them, and others also will be harmed by them.

I despised being told what to believe as a child so it would be hypocritical of me to try and tell others what to believe.

You are not indoctrinating them though, like religions do to children. That is a misleading analogy you are making. Instead, this would involve having adult conversations and showing how proper logic makes certain beliefs more or less likely than the other. You would not behave like a religion though, involving any sort of groupthink or swearing loyalty oaths to any authoritarian beliefs.

I'd much rather that we atheists set an example by being decent tolerant people, not that we are out to convert people to think like us. That's a fool's errand and one that will only cause more division and intolerance.

You are wrong there. I have been very vocal and outspoken about my beliefs, including my criticism of religious beliefs. Doing so has returned positive results. People I have known have privately confided in me that they do not believe the surrounding religion either. Some have also later come out of the closet themselves as secularists. Once people start paving the way, it helps others gain the courage to express themselves. It is not enough to pretend that secularist beliefs and religious beliefs have equal merit. We should be truthful and honest, and when people are expressing faulty, unreasonable, irresponsible, and harmful beliefs then they should not go unchallenged. People in society should speak up more to counter the nonsense that is so pervasive.

We already live in a very divisive period of time. I have no plan to add to that division.

To some, you just declaring yourself as an atheist is “divisive.” So would you stop declaring yourself as an atheist? Hopefully not. To some, saying gays should have equal rights is considered “divisive.” So would you stop advocating for equal rights for gays? Hopefully not. At some point, it should be realized that we cannot let others always dictate the rules of discussion. If they would consider some statement divisive, then that would entail that you cannot state it, even if it is true. Even if it should be said because being silent is being complicit.

I've accepted that religion can offer both positive and negative things to the world.

So can fundamentalist religions. So why did you earlier feel fine in saying that fundamentalist religions suck?

If it goes away, it will do so without atheist interference.

Just like racism went away without blacks standing up for themselves. Just like bigotry always goes away without those who are being targeted doing anything. If they did speak up for themselves and try to make their values a powerful movement, that would “interfere” with things.

Let me add, that I'm not here to debate anyone.

I will add that I am here to correct this flow of misinformation you stream.

Also I will add that your statement is false. Throughout this thread you have stated certain positions of yours and then tried to defend why you thought those statements were justified and criticisms of them were unjustified. That is what a debate is. So yes, you are here debating whether you would use that term or not.


A key question remains unanswered: Can fundamentalist religions also provide community and purpose? We agree that moderate ones can. Do you think fundamentalist ones can and do as well, or think not?

 

[southernhybrid]

Look Brian, I agree that being open about our atheism is usually a positive. I have had a few people tell me that they are skeptical of religion after I told them I was an atheist. I've also had a few people become extremely agitated, upset, even almost crying when I told them I'm an atheist, but most of the worst experiences were many years ago. I honestly don't give a shit if people hold onto some religious myths, as long as they don't use it for harmful purposes. That's what you don't seem to understand. That's cool. I know lots of atheists that share your viewpointt and I know lots of atheists that share my viewpoint. I'm not talking about people that I know in real life. My atheism is a very small part of my identity, just like religion is often a very small part of my friends indignity. I doubt that either of us are going to change our minds about this, so since I don't enjoy debating and since we both seem to be pretty firm in what we think, I"ll just leave it at that.


T.G.G. my experiences have been very different from yours. Let me give you the best example I can think of, off of the top of my head. When I was working in Florida during the 90s, a highly educated nurse found out I was an atheist, she almost cried, got down on her knees and begged me to tell her it wasn't true. But, my coworker, who is a fairly moderate Catholic, defended me and told me later that the other nurse was nuts. I have had Christians come to my defense many times when I was verbally attacked by a fundamentalist. I've always appreciated them for their kindness, and I would do the same for them if they were attacked by an atheist or a fundamentalist. If I must judge anyone, I will judge their character and not their metaphysical beliefs.

 

[Brian63]

I honestly don't give a shit if people hold onto some religious myths, as long as they don't use it for harmful purposes. That's what you don't seem to understand.

You are again misrepresenting me. I do understand that view you stated. I happen to think it is bullshit though, no matter how many times it is expressed. Religion promotes a wide assortment of bad beliefs, promotes bad behaviors, hinders social progress, maintains the public in a scientific illiteracy, generates religious trauma in children and adults, etc. They do in different ways and to different extents. So no, I am not saying all religions are the same. Simply that they have several very important features in common.

I doubt that either of us are going to change our minds about this,

Agreed. The flawed beliefs and powerful biases you hold seem to be deeply embedded into you, and I do not expect you to ever overcome them, unfortunately. I am instead helping to expose them, so that others watching do not get the mistaken impression that those flawed attitudes have any merit.

This recent U.S. election will re-energize me on the need for further secular activism (after a short break to recharge). Donald Trump as an individual along with all of the misogynist, hateful, bigoted, racist views that conservatives espouse are rooted in many ways to authoritarian religious beliefs. It should be extremely clear that atheists who care about other people and other forms of life should be willing to fight against this travesty from occurring again. Not just passively sit on our butts and hope that people figure things out on their own.

so since I don't enjoy debating and since we both seem to be pretty firm in what we think, I"ll just leave it at that.

As stated before though, that will not silence me from expressing my views. If you express your views, others are open to express criticisms of those views too.

 

[Angry Floof]

Brian, the "features" religions have in common are ones that can be found in any culture or ideology OR they are unfounded, unfalsifiable fear-based claims that essentially serve to control and manipulate people and keep them in the dark in some way, and are utterly unnecessary to a humane, peaceful, and prosperous community.

Are you claiming that some religions have "features" that can't be had without the unfounded beliefs? If so, I would say you are patently wrong and you can't name a single good thing religion can offer that secular communities, cultures, etc., also can offer.

Just because a community or culture has a religious nature doesn't make the religion essential to the community or culture being "good" or welcoming or whatever. It sounds like you are trying to give some kind of benefit to religion when it happens to not be horrible for humans when in fact it's just humans being good with or without religion, or more likely, in spite of the religious "features."

To your earlier point, are you claiming that a religious community offers comfort and community to people because it is religious? If so, that is one thing that I am objecting to as nonsense, and probably SH is as well.

"Good" religion is superfluous at best. Valuing and reinforcing aspects of ordinary human goodness doesn't make religion essential.

 

[Angry Floof]

There are important elements of religion that I think separate it from culture, philosophy, general ideology, etc.

Two basic and important elements are:
- religious identity as distinct from other humans on a basic, existence-defining level
- mores and rules that intrude into private life as applied to things that, one, don't hurt anyone, two, are none of wider society's business, and three, don't make sense to begin with, such as a religious directive to wipe your ass with only your bare left hand.

If you just take from any religion the things that make sense and are good for people, you don't find the group identity "human" subsumed to the ideological identity. We are all familiar with those types of pathologies: nationalism, jingoism, authoritarianism... all "isms" whose very nature creates conflict among groups of humans. You also won't find the element of enforcing strict rules in microscopic non-issues in every corner of private life.

There are others worth talking about, but when you say "good religion," you're just saying "good humanism plus some potentially toxic and destructive bullshit that may or may not arise as corruption or war or abuse."