Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence

Originally posted by socool8520
I got your point, I just don't think it works.

I clearly see the good and bad of religion. i'm for religous freedom if you didn't know. What I'm saying is why would you need something that does have negatives that are directly contributed to it over something where you could have the positives and not the negatives? If there was a diet plan that said it would help you lose weight by eating better and then another plan that said you need to eat better but also gave you a bunch of unnecessary rules, which one would you pick?

You can't negate the good, but you also can't negate the bad. Basic morality can cover the good of Religion without the negatives I provided previously. To me, that logically seems better.

Yes, you could point out that that stuff could be done without religion, but the point is is that that stuff has been done directly because of Religion. If you cut out the us vs them mentality of Religion, it would cut back on some of the mindless violence in the world? How is that a bad thing, and is Religion truly that important that you shouldn't? At least revise it.

That was a pretty dumb video disguised as a smart video. Obviously the reason vocal atheists contest religion is because they don't think it has an overall positive impact on modern civilization, regardless of it's impact on ancient civilization. The bike goes faster when you lose the training wheels, as it were.

Historically there's been countless time religion, as a cure, was horrifically worse than the disease.

There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

Yes and Religion is one of the archaic relics we keep holding onto. We found several of those things to be useless and moved on. I see no difference with Religion. I see teachings like Confucious to be of more practicality as it just talks of bettering oneself and understanding the universe. No you can't be save if you don't follow this path business.

Yes, we are tribal by nature which is why I am saying that you don't need religion for a sense of connection/unity. We have so many other options that don't tie you down with dated doctrine. Youth centers, social clubs, support groups, etc. There are so many that fill the void that religion would leave that it's ridiculous. And, without the feeling of exclusion and cultural biases that some religions (the dominant western ones mainly) come with. Holding onto that in lieu of better alternatives, is in my opinion, not practical at all.

In some sense I agree that atheists are more likely to be disconnected from cultural underpinnings or structures of meaning in our society, such as being nihilists or post-modernists (post-modernism being my new least favorite philosophy), though me saying this is hardly a holier than thou attitude because this doesn't apply to remotely all atheists, and I acknowledge that the religious are more likely to be tied to a different brand of regressiveness.

That's why I wouldn't want to live in a purely atheist or purely Christian world. I prefer a world where the good parts of both groups can find common ground, and the bad parts are diametrically opposed to the good parts as well as each other, as opposed to an all Christian world where the only bad parts are regressive Christians that are unified in their perspectives and goals, or an all atheist world where the only bad parts are unified under the banner of post-modernism or some other such nonsense.

Atheism is perfectly fine in my books, taking a lack of faith beyond a lack of faith in God to a lack of faith in meaning or morality (nihilism) or a lack of faith in truth or that ordered society is a good thing (post-modernism) is retarded. Any atheists reading this don't take this as a judgement of atheism or individual atheists, just a correlation between atheism and nihilism/post modernism that you aren't necessarily a part of.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's beyond planes crashing and technology failing. Take the atom bomb. There is both an upside and a downside to the pragmatic effects of technological advancement, was my point. But in order to judge whether technological advancement is on the whole a good thing or a bad thing, you have to compare the pros and cons and weigh them against each other. Just like with anything else, including religion.

Well this seems like a somewhat irrational claim, to me. In order to prove that it is a net negative you would have to prove it does more harm than good.

The typical Atheist approach (famously put forth by Hitchens) is to suggest that if there is anything negative caused specifically by a religious belief, then that is proof that religion is negative. Presumably because anything positive that might come out of it can be rationalized away as something that could've been achieved without religion.

This is a sort of double standard and IMO an example of sloppy and dogmatic reasoning that is informed more by one's ideology than by clear, objective thought and reasoning.

And there we disagree. You can cite the dictionary definition of religion as proof otherwise, but dictionary definitions will vary and ultimately religion is a somewhat complex and tricky phenomena to try to define. I personally think the definition you posted is incomplete.

Science may have discovered the atom bomb, but again there is nothing inherent within the core beliefs of science that would use it to cause harm. Whereas there are core beliefs within unsubstantiated beliefs of religions that see the atom bomb as a good thing, bringing about the "end times," "killing infidels" on a large scale, etc.

I'm not as big a fan of Hitchens as I am say of Harris or Dawkins, so I don't know his statements well enough to know if you're representing his ideas properly.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I think that generally a religion will preach some set of beliefs, rituals and/or practices that are aimed at achieving something better than what the external world without that religion tends to offer.

It's the delusional beliefs that are the problem. Even if we make your assumption true, that religions are aiming for improving the world, they are so clouded by nonsense without any evidence that it causes harm in the world in hope of the false next world.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As for "why would an Atheist take on this stance?" I dunno, maybe I just like stirring the pot but I also have grown somewhat tired of the holier-than-thou Atheism that is so prevalent online.

Oh lord. Why would you want to go back to delusion? Back into the Matrix? There's nothing inherently holier-than-thou about atheism. Atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in supernatural nonsense. It's only sometimes politically necessary to use the word.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I feel a sort of connection with my ancestors whenever I go to a Catholic church.

Study evolution. You'll have way more ancestors to feel close to. 😂

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

The difference is that that was the best science knew at the time and it has been abandoned and improved since. Science is still very, very new. If religion were still in charge we'd still be performing exorcisms instead of using rational remedies for mental patients. Not to mention burning witches and heretics alive.

Wow, I've never seen an atheist argue with such determination in favor of religion. lol. Bottom line: the problem is not "religion" (however you want to define it), it is beliefs not based on evidence turned into dogmas without question. Science inherently prevents that very problem. Can we at least agree on that?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Historically there's been countless time religion, as a cure, was horrifically worse than the disease.

This.

Originally posted by socool8520
Yes, we are tribal by nature which is why I am saying that you don't need religion for a sense of connection/unity. We have so many other options that don't tie you down with dated doctrine. Youth centers, social clubs, support groups, etc. There are so many that fill the void that religion would leave that it's ridiculous. And, without the feeling of exclusion and cultural biases that some religions (the dominant western ones mainly) come with. Holding onto that in lieu of better alternatives, is in my opinion, not practical at all.

👆 Religion is the ultimate us-vs-them because they all claim to have the ultimate truth, but are actually incompatible.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Science may have discovered the atom bomb, but again there is nothing inherent within the core beliefs of science that would use it to cause harm. Whereas there are core beliefs within unsubstantiated beliefs of religions that see the atom bomb as a good thing, bringing about the "end times," "killing infidels" on a large scale, etc.

I'm not as big a fan of Hitchens as I am say of Harris or Dawkins, so I don't know his statements well enough to know if you're representing his ideas properly.

I'll reiterate one more time for clarity: if you are asking whether the world is better off without religion, then IMO the only fair way to even begin to approach that question is to weigh the positive manifestations of religion against the negative manifestations.

To simply say something along the lines of "all I need to know is that faith based religions cause people to do some bad things" is IMO a cop out, and it seemed to me that was essentially what you were arguing and it reminded me of Hitchens, which is why I brought him up.

It's the delusional beliefs that are the problem. Even if we make your assumption true, that religions are aiming for improving the world, they are so clouded by nonsense without any evidence that it causes harm in the world in hope of the false next world.

Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything positive to come from trying to de-convert her and convince her that when she dies that's it, and that this fate awaits us all? Personally, I think this delusion is a benevolent delusion that protects her from some of the more abstract hazards of mortality. So what if when she dies it doesn't come true? She won't be around to notice that.

Oh lord. Why would you want to go back to delusion? Back into the Matrix? There's nothing inherently holier-than-thou about atheism. Atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in supernatural nonsense. It's only sometimes politically necessary to use the word.

Study evolution. You'll have way more ancestors to feel close to. 😂

The difference is that that was the best science knew at the time and it has been abandoned and improved since. Science is still very, very new. If religion were still in charge we'd still be performing exorcisms instead of using rational remedies for mental patients. Not to mention burning witches and heretics alive.

Wow, I've never seen an atheist argue with such determination in favor of religion. lol. Bottom line: the problem is not "religion" (however you want to define it), it is beliefs not based on evidence turned into dogmas without question. Science inherently prevents that very problem. Can we at least agree on that?

👆 Religion is the ultimate us-vs-them because they all claim to have the ultimate truth, but are actually incompatible.

Counter productive in the short-term, perhaps, but I'd argue that provoking more skepticism about religion may be beneficial in the long-term in a variety of areas.

^ At the very least it could get them to change some of the ridiculous biases they tie to their faith

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'll reiterate one more time for clarity: if you are asking whether the world is better off without religion, then IMO the only fair way to even begin to approach that question is to weigh the positive manifestations of religion against the negative manifestations.

So what about all the relatively harmless, but waste-of-time stuff that Christians do like try to convince poor people in more remote, developing countries that they need Jesus? That's kind of a waste of time. It's neither positive nor negative, really.

It's quite difficult to lay out what is positive and was actually brought about strictly by religion. Not a very practical or easily applied concept.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
To simply say something along the lines of "all I need to know is that faith based religions cause people to do some bad things" is IMO a cop out, and it seemed to me that was essentially what you were arguing and it reminded me of Hitchens, which is why I brought him up.

Why is that a cop-out though? People in large quantity ignore the horrible shit done in the name of religion and even give it a pass because it's religion. How much more dogmatic can you get? Why is religion on a pedestal above every other area of discourse? Why is it not subjected to rigorous scrutiny like say architecture or the study of communicable disease, or whatever other example you want to mention. Religion even has sort of an assumed connotation as being "good" (at least here in the United States) and yet Islam exists! Which is probably why many liberals here think Islam is A-okay, "Bring over the Muslims!! Yay!"

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It really depends on the manifestation. I'm not here to argue that there are no malignant manifestations of religion that I would like to see gone. But take for example the simple minded yet potent type of Christianity that my mother has. She isn't an intellectual or a biblical scholar and is not at all swayed by arguments that the bible says some bad things. She will just shrug and say "well, I don't believe everything in the Bible." But what she does believe is that she is going to see her dead parents, siblings, ancestors, friends and eventually her children and grandchildren again in the afterlife. And she really believes that, and can't conceive of it not being true.

Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything positive to come from trying to de-convert her and convince her that when she dies that's it, and that this fate awaits us all? Personally, I think this delusion is a benevolent delusion that protects her from some of the more abstract hazards of mortality. So what if when she dies it doesn't come true? She won't be around to notice that.

My mom's basically the same. But she loves the Bible for its more esoteric allegorical truths that most fundy Christians ignore or don't know about...

Atheism is not about trying to convince people of anything, other than looking at evidence. It's not about trying to convince Christians that there is no afterlife and when you die your're dead. Who knows if that's true? No one. It's not about peddling dogma and when you say it is, you're setting up a straw man and misrepresenting views. It's about weighing evidence and not making any outlandish assumptions as truth when they have not been and probably never will be verified.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I don't want to go back to delusion. I thought I made it clear that I believe what I believe regardless... it's only the rituals and practices that appeal to me. So I guess the question would be is "secular Catholic" a valid option in the same way there are secular jews? But I don't really feel that it is.

There's nothing wrong with liking rituals. It's probably embedded in our DNA.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Exactly. The difference is that one is human ignorance based on misguided religious thinking and thus must be demonized while the other was simply human ignorance based on misguided pseudo-scientific thinking and thus can be forgiven. This is my entire point about the selective reasoning and morality that Atheistic criticisms of religion tend to produce.

It's not selective reasoning! Science is designed to improve and grow. Faith-based religion is not.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This isn't the first time you've pointed out your surprise that these points are coming from an Atheist. I get it, you find it weird that an Atheist isn't towing the dogmatic line that Dawkins Harris etc drew. This only adds to my point that modern Atheism has become something resembling a sort of religious ideology if not an actual religion.

Lol, @ calling them dogmatic. I get it, you think you're so rebellious trying to criticize atheists for what you think is some ironic flaw in reasoning. But the only dogma atheists peddle is evidence. And there's nothing wrong with that in my book.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The ultimate irony here is that I am actually attempting to sort of "disarm" some of the us vs them mentality that Atheists have about religion in general. This us vs them mentality is a tribal impulse that will always manifest in any sort of struggle - be it physical or ideological. And I feel that the New Atheists have done a very good job at sort of galvanizing an army of people who will approach religion as "the enemy." I see this as counter productive and that is why I am speaking against it.

That's a perfectly reasonable concern. And if Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, etc were calling for atheists to rise up and slay all believers it would be justified. But they have never done that. Fortunately they just advocate honest conversation that questions the dangerous dogmas of religion, a perfectly reasonable and productive endeavor.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So what about all the relatively harmless, but waste-of-time stuff that Christians do like try to convince poor people in more remote, developing countries that they need Jesus? That's kind of a waste of time. It's neither positive nor negative, really.

It's quite difficult to lay out what is positive and was actually brought about strictly by religion. Not a very practical or easily applied concept.

Basically, I see it as an important aspect of human psychology and culture.

Why is that a cop-out though? People in large quantity ignore the horrible shit done in the name of religion and even give it a pass because it's religion. How much more dogmatic can you get? Why is religion on a pedestal above every other area of discourse? Why is it not subjected to rigorous scrutiny like say architecture or the study of communicable disease, or whatever other example you want to mention. Religion even has sort of an assumed connotation as being "good" (at least here in the United States) and yet Islam exists! Which is probably why many liberals here think Islam is A-okay, "Bring over the Muslims!! Yay!"

My mom's basically the same. But she loves the Bible for its more esoteric allegorical truths that most fundy Christians ignore or don't know about...

Atheism is not about trying to convince people of anything, other than looking at evidence. It's not about trying to convince Christians that there is no afterlife and when you die your're dead. Who knows if that's true? No one. It's not about peddling dogma and when you say it is, you're setting up a straw man and misrepresenting views. It's about weighing evidence and not making any outlandish assumptions as truth when they have not been and probably never will be verified.

It's not selective reasoning! Science is designed to improve and grow. Faith-based religion is not.

Lol, @ calling them dogmatic. I get it, you think you're so rebellious trying to criticize atheists for what you think is some ironic flaw in reasoning. But the only dogma atheists peddle is evidence. And there's nothing wrong with that in my book.

That's a perfectly reasonable concern. And if Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, etc were calling for atheists to rise up and slay all believers it would be justified. But they have never done that. Fortunately they just advocate honest conversation that questions the dangerous dogmas of religion, a perfectly reasonable and productive endeavor.

Well, it's very hard to articulate/quantify tbh but I feel that religion is an important part of the human experience because it helped teach us to think abstractly, symbolically, and to appreciate the basic essence of consciousness and human existence. It's the kind of thing that inspired people to build the Pyramids, the Sphinx, Göbekli Tepe, or even the cave paintings from 40,000 years ago are argued to have been created in a sort of shamanistic setting. Basically, I see it as an important aspect of human psychology and culture.

Science, math, and philosophy taught us the same things that you mentioned without the drawbacks. Nobody has ever said that if you choose Calculus over Trigonometry that you will go to hell, or if you don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun you will be killed.

Are you familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?"

I don't quite get how that applies.

Well, I guess I would just say that I think declaring that religion is bad for the world based on some examples of the negative consequences of religion in isolation is an outlandish assumption.

I think it is unnecessary for the world considering the other options available. I don't think that is an outlandish claim.

Yeah, he/she's not really making sense anymore. Would people like Martin Luther King Jr. be classified as ideologues? Or I suppose all that racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, etc that oh-so-often tends to go along with religion is good, too, eh Afro?

There's nothing wrong with mythology. We (as a species) have used stories and myths to help understand and make sense of the world and our place in it. And they are fun and interesting to think about and study. There's nothing wrong with doing so. It's great literature. But now that science has begun to unravel the all-too natural origins of existence there's no need to believe in literal fairy tales and make up paranoid ideas about the afterlife anymore, especially when they cause so much harm.

Originally posted by socool8520
Science, math, and philosophy taught us the same things that you mentioned without the drawbacks. Nobody has ever said that if you choose Calculus over Trigonometry that you will go to hell, or if you don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun you will be killed.

I don't quite get how that applies.

I think it is unnecessary for the world considering the other options available. I don't think that is an outlandish claim. [/B]

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, he/she's not really making sense anymore. Would people like Martin Luther King Jr. be classified as ideologues? Or I suppose all that racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, etc that oh-so-often tends to go along with religion is good, too, eh Afro?

There's nothing wrong with mythology. We (as a species) have used stories and myths to help understand and make sense of the world and our place in it. And they are fun and interesting to think about and study. There's nothing wrong with doing so. It's great literature. But now that science has begun to unravel the all-too natural origins of existence there's no need to believe in literal fairy tales and make up paranoid ideas about the afterlife anymore, especially when they cause so much harm.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Yes, they are also useful(i would disagree about there not being drawbacks) but really I would argue that religion predates all of those things and laid the foundation for us to even approach those kinds of esoteric topics.

They don't require you to isolate people if they don't agree with you nor do they force you to agree. On the second part, I definitely disagree. We as a species were naturally inquisitive which lead to us questioning and adapting to the world around us. That's what lead to scientific thinking. Religion is a also a byproduct of our wanting to understand the world around us. It was our first attempt at understanding something we didn't know.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's an assumption which is not really verifiable and informed more by ideology than by anything else. Hardly being very "skeptical" by making such broad brushed claims without being able to back them up properly, are we?

I don't know how else to back it up without having the ability to outlaw Religion. lol I've given you several examples of what could replace the sense of belonging and connection you seem to harp on so much as well as the morality without the segregation and exclusion. The fact that you can have all of the things you seem to care about without the drawbacks of mistrust and hatred for people outside of your club doesn't seem outlandish to me, it seems like common sense.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not actually advocating believing anything superstitious. But at the end of the day, people are going to believe whatever they believe. So I'm more talking about how we should treat other belief systems than I am talking about what we should believe. And I dare say I think MLK would agree with me that treating religion as the enemy is essentially divisive and counter productive.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical or even critical of a way of thinking that has lead to as much war and suffering as religion has. The other causes of war and suffering are not above strong criticism, religion shouldn't be either. Science can be scrutinized all day and instead of saying you shouldn't be so skeptical, it is encouraged.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
MLK was certainly an ideologue. Does that mean his stance against racism wasn't just? Not at all. Are you trying to say that being religious is as bad as being hateful toward another group of people? That's quite the comparison to make.

Man, you are all about some straw men, aren't you? No, of course I'm not saying that. You criticized Harris, Dawkins, Dennett etc by calling them ideologues...

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm accusing them of being ideologues. And so no, they don't need to wage actual jihad to be counter productive, nor is the "us-vs-them" mentality limited to actual warfare.

...so my point in bringing up MLK is that it's clearly not a bad thing to be an ideologue if you're advocating greater civil rights and social justice. Because in this country (the US) it's impossible to get elected to some public office unless you outwardly profess God and the Bible nonsense. Right now it would be impossible for an open atheist to be elected to public office. So Dawkins, Harris, etc are like MLK becuase they're just trying to push the conversation into great acceptance toward lack-of-religiosity. I fail to see, and you fail to demonstrate how that is counter-productive.

So in your view we shouldn't push the conversation into questioning religious nonsense because reasons, like the great rituals, traditions, etc. 😘 Go drink some more Jesus blood communion Kool-Aid. 😂

Nothing about questioning religious nonsense says anything about getting rid of rituals and some of the pleasant traditions associated with religions. Even Dawkins admits he enjoys the beauty of Christmas hymns and such. None of them are advocating getting rid of that stuff. They're only concerned about the toxic supernatural nonsense.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Man, you are all about some straw men, aren't you? No, of course I'm not saying that. You criticized Harris, Dawkins, Dennett etc by calling them ideologues...

...so my point in bringing up MLK is that it's clearly not a bad thing to be an ideologue if you're advocating greater civil rights and social justice. Because in this country (the US) it's impossible to get elected to some public office unless you outwardly profess God and the Bible nonsense. Right now it would be impossible for an open atheist to be elected to public office. So Dawkins, Harris, etc are like MLK becuase they're just trying to push the conversation into great acceptance toward lack-of-religiosity. I fail to see, and you fail to demonstrate how that is counter-productive.

They are doing a great job at rallying together the relatively small minority of people who agree with them while alienating and antagonizing the rest of the population.

These Atheist advocacy groups such as the Atheist Alliance and The Freedom from religion Foundation are examples of everything I dislike about modern Atheists. Quibbling over petty bullshit like town nativity scenes. It's a joke.

So in your view we shouldn't push the conversation into questioning religious nonsense because reasons, like the great rituals, traditions, etc. 😘 Go drink some more Jesus blood communion Kool-Aid. 😂

Nothing about questioning religious nonsense says anything about getting rid of rituals and some of the pleasant traditions associated with religions. Even Dawkins admits he enjoys the beauty of Christmas hymns and such. None of them are advocating getting rid of that stuff. They're only concerned about the toxic supernatural nonsense.

Originally posted by socool8520
They don't require you to isolate people if they don't agree with you nor do they force you to agree. On the second part, I definitely disagree. We as a species were naturally inquisitive which lead to us questioning and adapting to the world around us. That's what lead to scientific thinking. Religion is a also a byproduct of our wanting to understand the world around us. It was our first attempt at understanding something we didn't know.

I don't know how else to back it up without having the ability to outlaw Religion. lol I've given you several examples of what could replace the sense of belonging and connection you seem to harp on so much as well as the morality without the segregation and exclusion. The fact that you can have all of the things you seem to care about without the drawbacks of mistrust and hatred for people outside of your club doesn't seem outlandish to me, it seems like common sense.

But my other point is that there's an obvious double standard present when you use examples of religion being bad to "prove" that religion is bad, and then rationalize away any examples of religion being good. If you still don't see my point there, then we should just agree to disagree. Because it feels like otherwise we will just continue to go in circles.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical or even critical of a way of thinking that has lead to as much war and suffering as religion has. The other causes of war and suffering are not above strong criticism, religion shouldn't be either. Science can be scrutinized all day and instead of saying you shouldn't be so skeptical, it is encouraged.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not necessarily saying religion is a suitable replacement for philosophy or science. I just don't think those are complete replacements for religion, either. And beyond that, I think that it's a mistake to assume that they would've developed along the same lines had the religious traditions never existed. Especially philosophy. It's very hard to imagine what western philosophy in particular would've looked like had the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman pagan mythologies not existed.

Why? Some of the Greek philosophers did fine without Religion. They were some of the greatest minds to exist.

Well, I honestly don't really think it is verifiable. That's sort of my point.

But my other point is that there's an obvious double standard present when you use examples of religion being bad to "prove" that religion is bad, and then rationalize away any examples of religion being good. If you still don't see my point there, then we should just agree to disagree. Because it feels like otherwise we will just continue to go in circles. [/B]

Nobody is rationalizing away any good that religion brings. What are you talking about? All I have said is that you must acknowledge the bad (and there has been quite a bit of it in the history of mankind). I also think that there are other ways of getting the good that religion brings without the bad it brings. To me, that's just a better solution. You are correct though, we seem to be circling around this point, and it is this point that seems to be the deadlock. So agree to disagree is fine with me.

I actually agree with the principle that we should be able to criticize it. I think we are just disagreeing on exactly how much condemnation religion actually deserves. [/B]

Well considering it went an extremely long time unchecked, I don't think it is unfair that it is harshly criticized. When you are putting actual lives at stake for religion, I don't think there is a such thing as too much criticism. Look at how harshly we criticize any other type of ideologies that result in segregation and death of others.