Conceptions of Religion

Great Debates
1

After several recent threads on the subject of religion, its sanity, and its morality (insofar as religions sucking up youths to process them into mindless sheep), I believe a debate the essence of religion is in order - and I don’t mean, “what is god” or “does god exist” (I do NOT want to touch on that here) I mean, how religion is practiced.

As I understand it, the conception of religion (as a general term) by (at least) many of the atheists in the above threads and previous threads on the SDMB:GD is generally along the lines of the Catholic/Orthodox Catholic/Mormon/LDS structure; an organized body actively seeking to convert souls in the name of a god, collect their money, and brainwash their children. In essence, corrupt and a threat to individuals and society.

In one sense, this is a correct assessment. Historically, many religious organizations have, sadly, been corrupt, taking tithes, “donations,” and selling religious services according to their strict doctrine. Many have been anti-intellectual, favoring an elite clergy leading illiterate peasants. I’m not pointing fingers coughCatholicChurchcough, but organizations like this have existed likely from the beginning of time, and probably will exist to the end. People seek comfort, order, and guidance, and are willing to pay a fee for it. This invokes images of grandly decorated halls holding piles of gold with a rich patriarch rolling around in it. This stands to be true from ancient Egypt to modern TV evangelists. They manipulate and manipulated states, drove wars, and set back civilizations centuries.

However, like all generalizations, it is only half true. There is another image of religion.

Historically, local temples, churches, and other groups have been run by humble men and women who shed their civilian life for one of piety. They worked to serve the community around them, providing shelter and food, counseling and therapy, community services and activities, writing histories and keeping records. Without these groups, uncounted numbers of people would have suffered terribly. Periods of recorded history would be lost. From temples in ancient Greece to a small church in the American midwest, they served as centers of the community, they united people, solved disputes, and created some of the most intellectual discourse of the day.

The world of, say, Alyosha Karamazov, is that of a religious ideal that spans across continents, across civilizations, language, culture. Legends, fables, and history write frequently of this type of selfless clergy, idolizing the role. From Buddhist monks to Christian clergy, history is full of men such as this. Indeed, it is often written by them.

It seems that the face of religion is twofold. Like any tool - government, law enforcement, a hammer, or a knife - it may be used with honest intent to build something great, or as a weapon with which power is taken from the weak.

Neverminding that god may or may not exist, I do not think it is fair to classify all religion as the medieval Catholic Church any more than it is to classify all government as Nazi Germany.

Wars have been waged over religion, it is true. More wars have been waged over power, over land, over pride, over money, and over lust. Nations have been built around a corrupt faith. Many nations have been built faithless, and remained corrupt. Men have used religious justification to persecute fellow man, but men have used economics to do the same.

Religion is not the cause of these acts. It is a tool that, like many tools, has been abused by time and men. Is not the atheist who fears religion like the anarchist who fears his government? Is someone who believes a religious ideal, real or false, any less intelligent than someone who believes in a political ideal, real or false? Many seek to crucify (no pun intended) religious people who may preach, who may corrupt their children, and refuse to see them grow into (or out of!) such a system - but at the same time, have no problem indoctrinating them with political discourse, or cultural education.

Whether or not god exists, if it is a mass dellusion, imagination, pure fancy, or plain morality tails - instead focus your minds on what can be accomplished, and how people feel fulfilled through their religion. There can be nothing bad about that. Being wary of corruption, whether it be in government, in law, or in religion, is an important thing, but it does not invalidate the purpose of those institutions.

Are theists wrong? Maybe. Hell, quite possibly. Does that make us any less intelligent, or any less human? Does that mean we are corrupted to the depths of our minds (and souls)? Does it mean we are weak-willed, needing the support of a system? That we are followers seeking to be led? Again, in some cases, maybe. There are no absolutes. Religion is a form of power, and power corrupts. But the vast majority of theists, of agnostics, of any person of any faith in anything, political, social, economic, or religious, we have the best intentions in our hearts and minds. We function critically, we can think for ourselves, and we know what fills us with joy. Like a family heirloom passed down generations, it may be worthless - but to us, it is quite priceless.

2

One example I like to point out, having some personal experience in the area, is the theraputic value of religion. In overcoming psychological disorders or, especially, addiction to alcohol or drugs, religion is a powerful tool. Is it used as a crutch, to replace another psychological void? Quite possibly. Some people need all the faith, all the strength they can get. If they have to trick themselves into getting this, so be it. Is it not better to follow a set of morality tails than to continue a destructive addiction?

My bookshelf has everything from the Christian Bible (KJ) to Japanese folk tales. All of them touch on the supernatural, and the net effect of them is the same - not to capture your mind, but to make you think. Whether Kaya No Yoshifuji really became the husband of a fox and was saved by Kannon is irrelevant. What is important is what you can learn from this tale. You don’t have to believe in Buddhism to take something from it. You don’t have to follow anyone’s doctrine - but you can still understand the basic message.

Fiction or non-fiction, religion serves these purposes. It helps those in great need, and it guides those seeking wisdom. At the very least, accept those values, and learn what can be learned.

3

I’m not illiterate, I swear, see, I got it right at least once…

thuds head against desk

4

My interpretation of the non-establish clause is that it would be legal, as well as a good idea, to have religion presented in elementary school and onward. I’d present from a wide variety of backgrounds as well as dissenting commentary from atheists and agnostics, and would test the kids on familiarity with the belief systems and perspectives of all of these. Wouldn’t necessarily create universal tolerance or inoculate kids against perspectives that depend on blind unquestioning acceptance for their continued viability, but it might help, and the good content within any and all systems of thought can only flourish in such an environment.

5

Those of you with some experience with my threads should know by now that I take silence to mean, “Yes, Uncle Zagadka, you are right once again,” and will base future arguments and cite these threads, so if you have something to say, speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Really, I’m looking for people to tear holes in my thought. Never know if something is half-baked unless it is battle tested.

6

…hold your piece

7

This OP reminds me of the oft-quoted “whiskey” comment. “If you mean whiskey, the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pits of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being. However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life’s great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it. This is my position, and as always, I refuse to be compromised on matters of principle.”

8

I disagree. I believe the function of religion is to replace thinking.

Let me explain.

I cast my definition of religion rather more widely than you do in the examples in the OP. I would call it something like “a knowledge system whose success relies less on rigorous empirical testing and more on emotional satisfaction and imposition of authority.” That’s a fairly rough, first-attempt definition, and will probably require a lot of refinement, so please don’t hold me to it or take too much offense.

Under this definition, the conventional religions qualify, but the scope is broadened to include a lot of other things that people believe with utter vehemence despite the lack of any objectively concrete reason for doing so. Examples include everything from mainstream politics and sociology (witness the zealous evangelizing in favor of libertarianism and supply-side economics, to name just two examples) to art (“Stravinsky is the best composer ever!”) to so-called science (“that Cydonian mountain on Mars that looks like a face is a face, and is the remnant of an ancient civilization that blah blah blah…”). Each of these belief systems is defended aggressively by its adherents, and utterly resists rational disproof up to and including firsthand evidence to the contrary. (When we finally do send humans to Mars, and they walk right up to the “face” and report back that, nope, there ain’t nothin’ there but a rock, many Cydonian-culture believers will fall away, but some will concoct some new story about government conspiracies covering the truth or aliens who bombed the face into rubble when they realized we had seen it, or some such.)

The bottom line is, humans regularly demonstrate themselves as being capable of believing in all sorts of things without any real evidence. To some atheists, religion is merely an example of this phenomenon; but I turn it around, and I lump the whole thing together as one big meta-phenomenon. Belief that the New York Yankees are the best baseball team is hugely important to hardcore fans of the team, and manifests as being enormously similar to comparable beliefs based in religious faith. Thus, I consider them more or less the same thing.

Now, I want to be careful here: Just because I say religion replaces thinking does not necessarily mean that religion is inherently negative. This is not at all an attack, and I don’t want it to be interpreted that way. Believing without thinking is a fairly important component of human psychology, and is pretty much inescapable as long as we remain recognizably human. And, in fact, it can be said to confer some survival benefits, making it a positive phenomenon.

Let me give you an example: The volcano Krakatoa is one of the most dangerous in the world. Its 1883 eruption killed more people than that of any other volcano. Living in proximity to it is extremely risky, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future due to its geographical location, specifically how the tectonic plates of the region interact at that position. Obviously, it’s a good idea to maintain some distance from the volcano, just in case it erupts again and kills everyone in the vicinity. In the short term, over decades or even centuries (approximate lapse between major eruptions is 200 to 300 years), it’s possible to nestle right up to it without danger, but in the long run civilizations who cozy too close will be wiped out.

Now, until the mid-1960s, plate tectonics as a coherent concept of the workings of the world simply did not exist. Nobody knew why volcanos erupted, or why they cluster the way they do. Nobody knew why some volcanic ranges were more active than others. It was simply a fact, without any explanation. Prior to the advent of plate tectonics, there were some half-assed hypotheses offered, but they were unsatisfying because they were all conjecture and speculation without any hard evidence; and while geologists were willing to pick one or another of these hypotheses as a placeholder, they all pretty much knew that the explanation was inadequate and more investigation would be required. Until a breakthrough was made, the workings of Krakatoa, and volcanos in general, was almost a complete mystery.

This is true for prescientific peoples as well, and they similarly invented various hypotheses and explanations to account for Krakatoa’s behavior. But being prescientific, these explanations centered on demons, and gods, and mystical forces. Maybe there’s an angry creature living underground who throws fire from time to time. Maybe it’s a gate to hell, which from time to time gets filled up with sinners and must belch out an opening to free those who have done their time and are now free to ascend to heaven. It doesn’t matter what the specifics are; Indonesian culture is rich with a tapestry of supernatural beliefs about the volcanos in their midst, all of which describe them as dangerous neighbors around which one should be extremely careful and respectful. The point is that for them just as much as us, they needed an explanation, and like the scientists who worked before the formulation of theories about plate tectonics, they were willing to invent one totally out of their imaginations if that’s what it took.

And the further point is this: That belief serves a very real and very useful function for the survival of its culture. If you simply tell everybody to stay away from the volcanos but you don’t give them a reason why, eventually people will forget about the disaster that their great-great-great grandparents witnessed, and villages will spring up on the volcano’s slopes (volcanic soil is extremely rich for agriculture), and lots of people will die the next time the mountain shrugs its molten shoulders. By contrast, if everybody “knows” there’s a dragon in the crater of the mountain, and it’s best not to build one’s house too close lest one be burned to a crisp when the dragon’s in a foul mood, then the culture that “knows” this enjoys, in the long term, a survival benefit over any that don’t.

And in a weirdly Darwinian sense, the more useful the culture’s religious beliefs in terms of navigating and surviving its local hazards, the more likely that culture is to prevail over its neighbors, and the more firmly entrenched those beliefs will become. Indonesian-specific religions (as contrasted with Islam, which in the region is something of an admixture with the older beliefs) have made almost no inroads elsewhere in the world, because their volcano-specific elements have no resonance where the people do not live under that kind of threat. Instead, the globally successful religions combine flexible codes of moral behavior that do not depend on, for example, local geographic features for their relevance with an expansionist sensibility (both Christianity and Islam can be considered “Imperialistic” faiths, as they both require believers to spread the word as much and as far as they can and to attempt to convert as many people as possible, a shared trait that I believe is contributing to the current cultural clash).

What I’m getting at here is that the concept of “religion replacing thought” is not in and of itself a negative thing. It is a powerful means by which important truths are given a gloss of authority in order to pass them down from generation to generation. (The admonitions against eating shellfish and crustaceans in Leviticus, for example, can be viewed from a modern public-health standpoint as warning people away from consuming bottom-feeding creatures that pick up contaminants from the nearby human settlements and thus make people sick.)

Does that make sense?

9

I agree with it up until the “and imposition of authority” part. Many religions have no imposition of authority of any kind. Some religions don’t even have gods, and many have clergy/priesthood whose role is one of guidance, not authority. There is a fine line between the two. It is difficult to define religion (see below).

Here I have to disagree with you. A fundamental part of any religion is not… well, how do I put this. I’m trying to pick my words carefully. I don’t want to say “truth,” as the exploits you list above could be said to be in fundamental search of the truth as well.

Let me pull out the dictionary definitions:

    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. ((This is true for some religion, but not all. I discard it as Westernized gibberish))
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. ((As a conditional of 1.1., this must also be discarded.))
  2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. ((Obviously, but not what we’re looking for))
  3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. ((True, but not true for all religion))
  4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. ((And this is the definition closest to - but not exactly - what you are supporting, if I understand you correctly))

The only definition that I can see as valid is one that involves… how is this:

“a knowledge system founded on emotional satisfaction from a supernatural element.”

Unfortunately, this definition requires us to define what “supernatural” is, which is just as hard a practice. The definition I like best is, “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.” … but then we must define what “natural forces” are… I like, “fixed or determined by nature; pertaining to the constitution of a thing”… call that reality… reality is that which exists… existence is to be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place… OK, lets stick with “exists”

So now we have, “a knowledge system founded on emotional satisfaction from a force outside of that which exists.”

This definition fulfills that it is a knowledge system whose goal is emotional satisfaction (or fulfillment, but I grant you that choice of word) on the premise or belief in a force that does not exist (naturally). Trying to wrap one’s head around a force that does not exist should keep people busy enough.

I am reminded that in Russian, you do not (normally) use the present tense “to be.” Saying that something “is” is superfluous.

Pffft, we’ve never even landed on Luna, to some people.

… evidence that exists. I view my emotion like I view my eyes or my nose. It is another sense with which we experience life, but unlike the other senses, emotion has no existence. A movie can make you cry without phsyically doing anything. At the risk of sounding like a stoner, it exists… but it doesn’t exist.

I have to protest this, and this is the place where you interjected your argument to begin with, so here I will counter.

Ponder a shape that doesn’t exist.

Are you replacing thinking?

Religion isn’t a replacement for science, or a construct for how the wind blows - it can be, but it is not. It is a philosophy, and should be treated as such. How can you ask for “proof” of a philosophy? How can you say that it exists, or doesn’t exist? It is the study of just that.

10

No, religion is different from philosophy. Religion, by any definition I’ve ever heard, carries with it factual claims. God exists. Jesus died for your sins. You’ll be reborn after you die. There is a spirit in every rock and blade of grass. A being craving virgins lives in the volcano. Thunder is Thor fighting the giants.

None of these claims have any evidence for them. I therefore consider them false, just as I’ll consider any other baseless claim to be false until shown otherwise.

Belief in obviously false claims leads me to question the believer’s faculty for critical thinking, but that’s not my main beef with religion. It is, instead, that religion has made belief in obviously false claims socially acceptable. Without religion, we would never have seen homeopathy or John Edward. It is somehow OK to swallow total lies.

This is bad for society and humanity. It lowers the respect for science, which is how humanity gets somewhere in reality. It leads people to use useless pseudomedicine instead of stuff that works. It leads people to believe the ridiculous claims of a ballroom dancer pretending to speak to the dead instead of accepting that death is the final curtain. When and if these lies are exposed their former believers suffer tremendous desillusionment, disappointment and pain.

To sum up: isn’t it just better to believe in what we know is true?

11

I never said that religion was philosophy. I said (or meant to say) that it was more a philosophy than a science.

Remember, if you will, the premise of this thread - regardless of whether or not any religion has ever been remotely true, it is not a negative force, but a powerful tool.

I will thus disregard most of your post. That is for debating in threads where it is on topic.

How does it lower respect for science? It is not possible to be spiritual and scientific? I am quite sure that many of the scientists of the world who are religious would be curious to hear your all-encoumpassing statement of their lack of critical thinking skills, much less their lack of respect for their fields.

Instead of? I can’t recall many large scale religions that profess to cure illness in place of medical science. In fact, most work very closely with medical science, and there is a growing field in theraputic medicine, focusing a patient’s outlook to get their body to function better.

I fail to see the harm in believing a ghost story (which is decidedly removed from religious theology), or accepting a fate that does not await you. Are you worried that someone may be happy before they die?

Such is the risk of believing in anything - parents, a love, a government, or a priest. I believe this is also balanced out by the spiritual fulfillment and communal benefits of practicing religion. Put simply, people gravitate towards the best drug available, and for tens of thousands of years, that drug has been religion.

Why?

You are a self-proclaimed expert critical thinker.

Why is it necessary to beleive only in what you know to visibly and confirmably be true? While the search for truth may be a noble quest, is not also the quest for happiness? For fulfillment? I am staring at my bookshelves full of novels and DVDs - about half fiction, half non-fiction (historical texts and the like). What is wrong with believing in any of them? So, they are fiction. Does that mean that I can not learn from it? Does that not mean that I can take inspiration and fulfillment from them?

It is an age old question. If you had a choice between knowing the truth, knowing it is ugly, and living in its harshness, or accepting a lie, and spending your time in peace and joy, which do you choose?

Ironically, note that this question is, in fact, fiction. It has no reality, and thus, no bearing on your life.

Regardless of whether religion is true or not, whether it is a mere misconception or a knowing lie, is it a bad thing?

If it is, is a lie neccessarily a bad thing?

I don’t know. I’m just a dumb, backwards theist incapable of thought and scared by modern intellect. You’re the critical thinker. You tell me.

12

Ask all the theists who come along to this board and talk about “faith” in science, a paradoxical concept.

They’re welcome. I’d be most interested in hearing why they, while devoting their lives to the useful study of the quantifiable, believe in fairy-tales.

Who said anything about large scale? For that matter, I didn’t say religions promote pseudomedicine; I said that religion makes such things socially acceptable.

No, I’m worried they’ll believe something that’s false, which will lead them to more easily believe other things that are false, and so on. Much better, then, to concentrate on what we know and can do.

Appeal to tradition. Fallacy.

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Oh yes. Happiness trumps all other concerns. I do not care one jot or tittle about the abstract concept of “truth”. I just see no indication that happiness through lies is in any way better than happiness through truth, and the former leads to easier belief in other lies, the risk of the lies being exposed, and so on.

Believing in them is definitely harmful, as I’m sure you agree. You don’t want to be trying to fly like Peter Pan. Enjoying them is, of course, perfectly all right.

Nope. Confusing them with reality, however, is bad.

Peace and joy in living the lie. Can you show me that a world with religion is better than a world without it?

Yes, as it is better to not have religion. You get all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff.

No.

You really have to skip the martyr complex. You asked a question, I answered it. I’m sorry if you were offended, but you shouldn’t be asking questions that you don’t want answered.

13

looks around

Like…?

This is the ironic part. The atheist, professing superior thinking skills and boasting the Shield of Truth, stares dumbfounded that a person can gain happiness from anything but The Truth. I don’t know, Price. Maybe it is because humans are not quite logical creatures?

How so?

Heaven forbid (pun intended) that people get some silly romantic ideas in their heads. Where would our Logical Truth-based Grand Society be while plagued with romanticism?

Er, explain again how stating that “belief” in parents, government, or anything else can lead to an equal amount of disillusionment and suffering as religion is an “appeal to tradition” fallacy?

If you don’t know the Truth, then why are you posting? Are you not posting possibly incorrect information, and participating in the spread of a lie?

Glad we agree.

What in Peter Pan gives me the impression that I can fly like him?

No. Can you show me that a world without religion is better than a world with it?

Like? Oh, right. Religion is anti-science, anti-medicine, and what else?

I’m not offended. What ever gave you that question? I asked you if a lie is a bad thing, and you said no. I fail to see which question I did not want answered. In fact, you answered it much like I expected. As for martyring… shrugs I know you pure logical types can get a little tiffy when people use literary device to stress a point, but seriously?

In the end, maybe your “can you show me that a world with religion is better than a world without it?” is the deciding question. From your point of view, of course, you can show neither of our worlds at all. From my point of view, it is irrelevant, because I leave the freedom of choice between atheism and theism.

Going back to the point of my OP, religion can be used for “good,” and it can be used for “bad.” It can lie, it can mislead, it can prejudice, it can spread ignorance. It can also be communal, theraputic, supportive, fulfilling, and wise. Religion is a tool. You can use it any way you like. You - you seem focused on the negative uses. You feel that it is a threat to your society, correct? I do not see your society crumbling, your science failing, or medicine being denied to the masses. I do see some people who I disagree with, but I would disagree with them with or without religion between us. You seem to think that with religion removed, everyone will reach a mutually beneficial conclusion, a mass catharsis that will lead to general equality and free thinking. I find that highly unlikely. Unfortunately, neither of us has the luxary of having any real evidence behind their arguments, as religion is a neutral tool, as is government, and family. Any of them can be bliss, or nightmare.

14

Then let’s stick to that. There are numerous bad sides of religion. Religion has led people to kill, hate, torture, and perform many other acts that, I think we agree, are harmful. Religion is by definition nonrational, and accepting nonrationality is bad, because nonrationality can lead to things like homophobia, racism, intolerance, rigid moral standards with no sensible basis, and so on.

As for what you cite as the good sides of religion, those can all be had while remaining rational. There’s no need to bring the risks of lies and nonrationality into it.

Therefore, I can’t see why a world without religion wouldn’t be better than one with. A world where everyone believes what they know, realises what they don’t know and doesn’t base their convictions on nothing, that’s the world I want to live in.

15

[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Then let’s stick to that. There are numerous bad sides of religion. Religion has led people to kill, hate, torture, and perform many other acts that, I think we agree, are harmful. Religion is by definition nonrational, and accepting nonrationality is bad, because nonrationality can lead to things like homophobia, racism, intolerance, rigid moral standards with no sensible basis, and so on.

Whoa, whoa, whoa…I was going along minding my own business, enjoying reading the message boards, when I just had to respond to this. Religion has not led people to do these things…Religion is the tool people who would do these things use to justify themselves. I just couldn’t move along and let this premise stand…especially since it is stipulated in the OP that religion can be used as a negative tool, but it doesn’t have to be. Stupid, hurtful people will always find reasons to be stupid and hurtful.

16

Cite? Show me, for example, that those little words “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” hasn’t caused anything bad ever, it was all “stupid and hurtful” people who for some nondisclosed reason had to pick on gays.

This “religion is just the tool” is what religious people fall back on when they look at the long, bloody and hateful history of religion. It’s frankly just a defense mechanism. Religion has good sides and bad sides, like I said. Since the good sides can be had without religion, I see no reason to tolerate it.

Incidentally, this would hold true even if “religion is just the tool” were true. Why give these “stupid and hurtful” people the tool?

17

It’s virtually impossible to prove a negative. Of course, I can’t cite proof that nobody has ever harmed some one else because of religion. I maintain, however, that even if people had never heard those words, many would still pick on gays, (which is wrong). Because people are what they are, which means some are fearful of anything different. Do you honestly believe that if there were no religion there would be no intolerance? Besides, your cite is specific to one or maybe two (i’m no biblical scholar so I don’t know if that is OT or NT) religions. And even if it weren’t, any idea can be warped & used to justify cruelty. It has nothing to do with my religion and I don’t understand why I should be deprived of the comfort it gives me to make you feel more secure. Religion isn’t the problem. Fear is the problem. A need to equate anything that is different with inferior is the problem. You don’t need religion to have those problems, losing religion will not solve them.

18

OK, I read your OP 3 times and I can’t for the life of me figure out what the debate is. The best I can get out of it is a plea for validation of your religious beliefs.

Can you state in one sentence what’s up for debate here?

19

Regardles of whether it true or not, is religion the evil, all-dooming bastion of ignorance and bad will that it is made out to be so frequently on this board?

20

I think you’re overreacting to a few anti-religious folk on this board. I’m a hard atheist and can’t remember ever making a statement along those lines. Religion seems to serve some purpose for humans since every population of humans seems to have some form of it in its culture. And, AFAIK, there has never been a fully atheistic society so we really don’t have any data on what one would be like. Even the USSR, which was officially atheistic, was composed of a population that never fully gave up its religious traditions.