What does it make sense to believe without evidence?

[cosmosdan]

@Scott Plaid

He is making assertions without backing them up. However, that doesn’t mean he is basing his statements on faith, simply that he is not explaining his reasoning to you. Also, I have yet to see distortion of logic from him.

Did I claim he was basing his statements faith? My point was that he seemed to be useing different standards of judgement in order to support his own belief. That is *similar * to what religious zealots do isn’t it? It is also a distortion of logic IMHO.

Repeat after me. A gov. declaring that all citizens must be atheist does not make a culture atheistic.

No kidding? Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Try being relevant. Would you say that the persecution of religion by a goverment that has officially declared itself to be atheist might be significant?

Yes. However, while you may or may not have gotten support for such a attitude from the bible, you may just as easily gained the opposite attitude. Read the thing again. It contains quite a lot of abhorrent teachings, along with the good.

Comon Scott pay attention. Have I ever said there’s nothing but wonderful things in the Bible? What’s your point? What in the section of my post you quoted had anything to do with the Bible?

[cosmosdan]

Trust

I’m attempting to post some links to previous threads on this subject that might be helpful.

Bible Thread

Christianity thread

I hope they work.

[Der_Trihs]

@cosmosdan

Aside from my sarcasm, someone refered to your attitude as evangelical. I was just thinking that same thing. Your zeal to assert what you believe is true and the way you distort logic to establish it is exactly what many Christians do to cling to their own beliefs. There is no doubt that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Many horrible things have been done for money. I wish money had just never been invented. Governments have done horrible things. We’d be better off without governents. My point is that these things are such an integral part of human history there is no way to realistically seperate them. Is religion used by governments to hide their own evil acts. That’s easy to see. So isreligion to blame or corrupt governments that manipulte them. Are religions and governments corrupted by the desire for money? We can see that over and over. Are religious beliefs to blame or the lust for money. Someone said, the love of money is the root of all evil. So which is the worse evil? It comes back to choice. What is the foundation of who we are as people and what moves us to make the choices we make.

Government is necessary; money is necessary; religion is not. We would not be better off without money; we’d be living in smaller, more impovershed societies. We would not be better off without government; we’d be living in the War of All Against All. We would be better off without religion.

No matter how many times I point out the evils of religion, you claim I have provided no evidence; you share the common religious view that evils done in the name of religion don’t count against it. I notice you have provided no benefits from religion that come close to balancing the costs; some charities and schools don’t balance the tyranny and slaughter done in the name of religion.

You claim religion is corrupted by those who seek power; you provide no evidence that it ever was uncorrupt to begin with. In my opinion, religion is corruption; the psychological/social equivalent of a virus that consumes and warps it’s host for it’s own benefit.

You claim that religion has provided charity and education, but ignore the fact that religion is unnecessary for them. If anything, the non-religious are more interested in both. The religious idea of “charity” is usually to throw a few scraps of food at people, while forcing them to listen to a sermon.

@cosmosdan

Is the Soviet Union an example that even an official atheist state doesn’t escape corruption and the evil that humanity sometimes commits against it’s fellow man? .

As I and others have said, Communism is a religion in all but name; “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”. The Communists slaughtered and oppressed unbelievers the same way Christians and Muslims always do when they have the power. It’s the nature of monotheism; sort of “There is no God but Communism, and Marx is It’s prophet.”

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

Government is necessary; money is necessary; religion is not. We would not be better off without money; we’d be living in smaller, more impovershed societies. We would not be better off without government; we’d be living in the War of All Against All. We would be better off without religion.

And let’s add one more assertion that you can’t prove. Are you becoming more evangelical by the day?

No matter how many times I point out the evils of religion, you claim I have provided no evidence; you share the common religious view that evils done in the name of religion don’t count against it.

I never claimed anything such thing. Please show me where I claimed this or retract it.

I notice you have provided no benefits from religion that come close to balancing the costs; some charities and schools don’t balance the tyranny and slaughter done in the name of religion.

Thats right I didn’t. You dismiss any benefits as not really being about religion while insisting that evils more about greed and power than religious belief are blamed on religion. Youir standards are so completely a reflection of your own bias that it’s ludicrious to try to engage in serious debate with you. The Holocaust was about religion period, but the believers that sacrificed their lives to stop Hitler get no credit, that was just self defense. You twist words and logic like the best religious zealot I’ve ever encountered. Jimmy Swaggart could take tips from you.

You claim religion is corrupted by those who seek power; you provide no evidence that it ever was uncorrupt to begin with. In my opinion, religion is corruption; the psychological/social equivalent of a virus that consumes and warps it’s host for it’s own benefit.

Can we seperate organized religion, religious leadership the religious expression of it’s members? To boil it down to an easy to understand situation. If I, because of my spiritual beliefs, give 100 dollars to a charity, and the head honcho of that charity takes my money and parties with it, is my act of kindness any less sincere? I’m not a fan of organized religion and am outraged by some of their actions and attitudes. I don’t blame every believer for the ones that are jackasses. If someone is a jerk they don’t get extra or fewer jerk points because of their religion. If they are a good person they don’t get minus poinjts for not believing. I understand that it is just a normal expression of our humanity with it’s flaws and benifits. It’s part of the human experience and growth.

You claim that religion has provided charity and education, but ignore the fact that religion is unnecessary for them.

I haven’t ignored or denied it. You’re the one that made an assertion about religion that you have yet to prove. I merely stated that if you’re going to weigh the good against the bad you must give credit for the good. The fact that people can be charitable without religion has nothing to do with your assertion.

If anything, the non-religious are more interested in both. The religious idea of “charity” is usually to throw a few scraps of food at people, while forcing them to listen to a sermon.

And let’s chalk up another unproved assertion for you. How many does that make? I’ve lost count.

As I and others have said, Communism is a religion in all but name; “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”. The Communists slaughtered and oppressed unbelievers the same way Christians and Muslims always do when they have the power. It’s the nature of monotheism; sort of “There is no God but Communism, and Marx is It’s prophet.”

This is an interesting bit of hypocrasy that is very telling of your own bias. Goverment is nessecary. Religion isn’t. This government which declared itself to be atheist, shares some traits with religion so it’s actually a religion. That means even the religious persecution by self proclaimed atheists can be blamed on religion.
Of course when an asshole of a president proclaims himself to be be religious and commits henious acts, then his proclamation is accurate, and again religion is to blame. It’s just ludicrous.

[David_Simmons]

@cosmosdan

I have a question though. Concerning the net effect of science. If we give science credit for medicine saving lives and other advances, then doesn’t science have to take the blame for things like the Atomic bomb, Global warming, etc.?
What is the net effect of science?

I think this is an invalid comparison. The killing that is done for religious reasons is done in the name of religion by those who practice that religion and is what they consider to be religious acts.

The deaths from the atomic bomb were not part of science and were not done as scientific acts. Strictly speaking the manufacture and dropping of the bomb was an example of technology and not of science.

I wouldn’t go as far as Der Trihs on the evils of religion. However I do think that the world would be better if people had taken a rational rather than a superstitious route to trying to protect themselves agains natural disasters. Unfortunately homo so long ago had no background for a method that systematically tried to find out the real reason for the lightning. And so such frightening things were ascribed to a demon for which the cure was to have your own, bigger demon as a protector.

I will say again that in order to disregard one part and not another of the instructions in the Bible an external standard is needed to sort the “bad” from the “good.” Take the example of the abolition of slavery. Religious people played a large role in the movement to get rid of slavery but they cannot have gotten their opposition to slavery from the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned as an sin. Even as late as the Book of Philemon, Paul sends the escaped slave Onesimus back to Philemon without any hint that slavery is against God’s law or any Christian principle. The most he does is to say the Philemon should treat his slave kindly. He also slips in a word of warning that he, Paul, will visit Philemon in the future and will be able to check up on the treatment accorded the slave.

I think those who claim that there can’t be morality without religion, and specifically without the religions based on the Bible should ponder this.

I stumbled across an example in which even the Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis seems to hold that God is accountable to some external standard. In his essay We Have Cause To Be Uneasy Lewis writes about the moral law of God. His point is that God is called “good” but that doesn’t means soft or indulgent. His point is that “good” means that God stands for “good” actions. Lewis then goes on to say that God condemns human greed and tricker and:

unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good.

This quite plainly says that Lewis thinks there is a standard with regard to human greed and trickery that God must adhere to in order to merit the adjective “good.”

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@David Simmons

I think this is an invalid comparison. The killing that is done for religious reasons is done in the name of religion by those who practice that religion and is what they consider to be religious acts.

The deaths from the atomic bomb were not part of science and were not done as scientific acts. Strictly speaking the manufacture and dropping of the bomb was an example of technology and not of science.

I think it’s invalid to. Just like Der Trihs arguements. My point was that science or religion, it’s the choices of the people involved that determine good or evil. I don’t deny the horrors perpetrated by religion.

I wouldn’t go as far as Der Trihs on the evils of religion. However I do think that the world would be better if people had taken a rational rather than a superstitious route to trying to protect themselves agains natural disasters. Unfortunately homo so long ago had no background for a method that systematically tried to find out the real reason for the lightning. And so such frightening things were ascribed to a demon for which the cure was to have your own, bigger demon as a protector.

Who can say for sure. I have a feeling that the same wonder and quest for answers about our own nature and destiny that is an essential part of religion, is the source of our scientific search for answers. It is an essential part of our humanity so we may not be “better off without it” The dark part of our humanity that committs horrible crimes against each other is not that sense of wonder. The part that seperates people into “us” vs. “them” and then turns suspicion and mistrust into hatred of" them", is the same no matter which organization it inhabits. It may also be an unavoidable element of our humanity, as much as I hope that’s not true. Saying we’d be better of without those things is akin to saying we’d be better off if we were better. It doesn’t really mean much.

I will say again that in order to disregard one part and not another of the instructions in the Bible an external standard is needed to sort the “bad” from the “good.” Take the example of the abolition of slavery. Religious people played a large role in the movement to get rid of slavery but they cannot have gotten their opposition to slavery from the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned as an sin. Even as late as the Book of Philemon, Paul sends the escaped slave Onesimus back to Philemon without any hint that slavery is against God’s law or any Christian principle. The most he does is to say the Philemon should treat his slave kindly. He also slips in a word of warning that he, Paul, will visit Philemon in the future and will be able to check up on the treatment accorded the slave.

I think those who claim that there can’t be morality without religion, and specifically without the religions based on the Bible should ponder this.

I agree. Anyone who says there can’t be morality without religion is deluding themselves. We had an interesting discussion in another thread about where morality comes from for atheists. It was pretty enlightening for me. Although, in my opinion, I think what Jesus was teaching was not about our outward behavior but about our internal transformation. He understood that as mankind was transformed inside then societies would be changed on the outside.

I stumbled across an example in which even the Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis seems to hold that God is accountable to some external standard. In his essay We Have Cause To Be Uneasy Lewis writes about the moral law of God. His point is that God is called “good” but that doesn’t means soft or indulgent. His point is that “good” means that God stands for “good” actions. Lewis then goes on to say that God condemns human greed and tricker and: This quite plainly says that Lewis thinks there is a standard with regard to human greed and trickery that God must adhere to in order to merit the adjective “good.”

Interresting but with due respect to Lewis I don’t agree. IMO, the essence of God is love and truth. Anything that is not love or is not truth is just alien to God.

[Scott_Plaid]

@cosmosdan

Interresting but with due respect to Lewis I don’t agree. IMO, the essence of God is love and truth. Anything that is not love or is not truth is just alien to God.

I see. Now, do you see how this is a case of the pot calling the keetle black when you say

@cosmosdan

one more assertion that you can’t prove.

in reply to a others, and yet do the same?

[David_Simmons]

@cosmosdan

I think it’s invalid to.

I don’t claim that scientists can’t do bad things in the name of science and for supposed scientific purposes. There are the examples of the medical experiments at Dachau under the Hitler regime. This could be dismissed as a aberration except there is that disgusting case here in the US of the black men with syphillis who were left untreated in order to study the long term effects of untreated syphillis. Although I don’t object to animal experimentation for medical purposes in theory I sometimes wonder if the same answers couldn’t be gotten some other way in some cases.

[Der_Trihs]

@cosmosdan

And let’s add one more assertion that you can’t prove. Are you becoming more evangelical by the day?

You are the one that claims religion has benefits that outweigh the costs; what are they ? The costs of religion are huge, and it would take something impressive to make up for it.

As for me proving my point… again and again I point out the harm religion causes, and say that makes it bad. Is this really that complex an idea ?

@cosmosdan

I never claimed anything such thing. Please show me where I claimed this or retract it.

Every time you dismiss religion as the cause of evil done in it’s name. People do horrible things in the name of religion, they say they are doing it in the name of religion, but somehow that doesn’t count.

@cosmosdan

The Holocaust was about religion period, but the believers that sacrificed their lives to stop Hitler get no credit, that was just self defense.

Most of the religious support went to Hitler, not the Allies. Stop trying to pretend that Christianity had any interest in stopping the Holocaust. I seriously doubt that many people motivated enough be religion to fight would have fought against the Nazis, since they were executing Jews who “killed Jesus”.

@cosmosdan

I haven’t ignored or denied it. You’re the one that made an assertion about religion that you have yet to prove. I merely stated that if you’re going to weigh the good against the bad you must give credit for the good. The fact that people can be charitable without religion has nothing to do with your assertion.

I do give credit to the good; I just think it’s trivial compared to the harm. You still have not come up with a benefit of religion that comes close to the cost. The fact that non-religious people can be charitable is important because it eliminates the arguement that charity is a benefit of religion; there is no evidence that religion makes people more charitable.

@cosmosdan

And let’s chalk up another unproved assertion for you. How many does that make? I’ve lost count.

It’s a complaint I hear all the time. “They fed me, but made me listen first”. “They gave out water, but demanded we submit to baptisms first”.

@cosmosdan

This is an interesting bit of hypocrasy that is very telling of your own bias. Goverment is nessecary. Religion isn’t. This government which declared itself to be atheist, shares some traits with religion so it’s actually a religion. That means even the religious persecution by self proclaimed atheists can be blamed on religion.
Of course when an asshole of a president proclaims himself to be be religious and commits henious acts, then his proclamation is accurate, and again religion is to blame. It’s just ludicrous.

Atheist is not the same as nonreligious. The fact that Communism was officially atheist doesn’t mean Communism isn’t a religion. Also, it shares many traits with religion; that’s why I feel justified in calling it one.

@cosmosdan

IMO, the essence of God is love and truth. Anything that is not love or is not truth is just alien to God.

And you claim that I make unfounded assertions .

[Voyager]

@Der Trihs

Government is necessary; money is necessary; religion is not. We would not be better off without money; we’d be living in smaller, more impovershed societies. We would not be better off without government; we’d be living in the War of All Against All. We would be better off without religion.

Could humanity live without religion, or would something like it have to be invented. Maybe you disagree, or maybe this is too depressing, but a large percentage of mankind does not want to think about the big issues, don’t want to find out why if why is complicated. Much easier to let the priest or commissar explain it. Isn’t it easier to have an answer to where you go when you die than to accept that there is none?

As an example, look at how the religions with certainty are winning out over those which allow many answers. It happens in politics also. Maybe without religion you’d have a large population of very neurotic would-be worshippers.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

Could humanity live without religion, or would something like it have to be invented. Maybe you disagree, or maybe this is too depressing, but a large percentage of mankind does not want to think about the big issues, don’t want to find out why if why is complicated. Much easier to let the priest or commissar explain it. Isn’t it easier to have an answer to where you go when you die than to accept that there is none?

As an example, look at how the religions with certainty are winning out over those which allow many answers. It happens in politics also. Maybe without religion you’d have a large population of very neurotic would-be worshippers.

A large portion of humanity would rather get food and housing for free, but since that’s not an option for most of us, we go through the effort of working for a living. If religion weren’t available as a mental crutch, perhaps humanity would be forced to actual think about the big issues, which, I believe, could only be a good thing.

[David_Simmons]

@Voyager

Isn’t it easier to have an answer to where you go when you die than to accept that there is none?

Doesn’t the available evidence indicate that our consciousness results from the electrical activity in our brains? So I think there is an answer as to where we go when we die. When the electrical activity ends, we end and are nowhere.

[magellan01]

@Der Trihs

As I and others have said, Communism is a religion in all but name; “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”. The Communists slaughtered and oppressed unbelievers the same way Christians and Muslims always do when they have the power. It’s the nature of monotheism; sort of “There is no God but Communism, and Marx is It’s prophet.”

I just got back and decided to review the thread. I didn’t expect much movement in the respective positions, but Der Trihs, you have made extraordinary progress. You’ve now taken the failed, murderous societal philosophy which bans religion, the one that uses pure rationalism to weigh what is good for the state, and therefore its inhabitants, and tried to tie it to the thing you despise: religion. This is exactly the type of contorted, dishonest thinking you (and I) despise when it come from a fanatic of any religious stripe. Jehovah’s Witnesses that have knocked on my door have had more open minds, and fairer arguments, than you in this thread. Truly. While we’ve often found ourselves on opposing sides of a debate, I’ve enjoyed the quality of your thinking. I suggest you take a break and read this thread over.

And why do you fiind it so difficult to accept the claim that most of the ills you cite have been done by those wielding a contorted interpretation of religion, Christianity in particular? If you look to the teachings of Jesus (as in Jefferson’s Bible) it is easy to seperate the true teachings from the contortions. And it is not fair (or logical} to hold the ills of the contortion against the ideal of the religion. For the same reason, we shouldn’t blame the millions and millions of deaths delivered at the hands of Communism on Atheism and Rationalistic thought and condemn them forever. Wouldn’t you agree?

Your words have the tone of a religious fanatic. Just because the Higher Power one may bow to is Rationalism doesn’t mean that he can’t embrace the ideology so fervently as to let it blind him and close his mind, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

But then again, I’m probably wrong about all this. Because, as you have said, you can’t possibly be.

[cosmosdan]

@Scott Plaid

I see. Now, do you see how this is a case of the pot calling the keetle black when you say in reply to a others, and yet do the same?

An assertion isn’t usually prefaced by “In my opinion” IMO is a recognition that it may not be true and are presenting something as an idea rather than fact.

Perhaps the IMO is implied with Der Trihs but too often some outlandish and extreme claim is made without that qualification. It is presented as if it is fact.
Der Trihs also crys for evidence pretty consistently when anyone expresses a spritual belief or opinion. In a recent thread people were simply discussing concepts without any declaration of “this is true” and he still challenged them saying, “there is no shred of evidence”{ repeat until you lose consciouness}

I am trying to point out that he makes his own share of claims he cannot prove in his religion of anti religion.

[Scott_Plaid]

I just got back and decided to review the thread. I didn’t expect much movement in the respective positions, but magellan01, you have made extraordinary progress. You’ve now taken a group known as religion (Which, btw can be known by the way it can be scene exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community* & the failed, murderous societal philosophy which bans religion, the one that uses pure rationalism to weigh what is good for the state, and therefore its inhabitants, and tried to tie it to the thing you despise: religion. Sue, so maybe communism has all the other hallmarks of religion, but it still banned Christianity, so you are so wrong to call it a religion! I am full of Grrrrr. This is exactly the type of contorted, dishonest thinking you (and I) despise when it come from a fanatic of any religious stripe. Jehovah’s Witnesses that have knocked on my door have had more open minds, and fairer arguments, than you in this thread. Truly. While we’ve often found ourselves on opposing sides of a debate, I’ve enjoyed the quality of your thinking. I suggest you take a break and read this thread over. Also, I would highly recommend you read the book “The God That Failed” to show why religion and Coummunism are nothing alike.

And why do you find it so difficult to accept the claim that most of the ills you cite have been done by those wielding a contorted interpretation of religion, Christianity in particular? If you look to the teachings of Jesus (as in Jefferson’s Bible) it is easy to separate the true teachings from the contortions. What do you mean you don’t agree!? I just clearly made a claim, thus I am right. And it is not fair (or logical} to hold the ills of the contortion against the ideal of the religion, since- Hey, look, a what is that behind you?. For the same reason, we shouldn’t blame the millions and millions of deaths delivered at the hands of Communism on Atheism and Rationalistic thought and condemn them forever. Wouldn’t you agree? What? No, I would not agree that it is really the fault of an unquestioning obedience to authority, such as is found in the story of Isaac’s sacrifice. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Your words have the tone of a religious fanatic. Just because the Higher Power one may bow to is socially accepted doesn’t mean that he can’t embrace the ideology so fervently as to let it blind him and close his mind, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

But then again, I’m probably wrong about all this. Because, as you have said, you can’t possibly be.

*All apologies to Messieurs Michael Langone and Louis Jolyon West.

[Scott_Plaid]

@cosmosdan

I am trying to point out that he makes his own share of claims he cannot prove in his religion of anti religion.

Actually, I think there is a diffrence between making claims he can not prove, claims he can prove but will not elaborate on, and claims he can prove but will convince people with. For whatever reason, he has chosen the second option. Don’t ask we why, but he has. Not the same thing as a baseless claim, at all.

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

You are the one that claims religion has benefits that outweigh the costs; what are they ? The costs of religion are huge, and it would take something impressive to make up for it.

Here’s the 2nd statement you’ve made aboout me that is blatantly untrue. You seem to love evidence. SHow me where I made this claim or admit this statement is false.

As for me proving my point… again and again I point out the harm religion causes, and say that makes it bad. Is this really that complex an idea ?

Not at all. The concept is simple. Proving it is not. You’ve failed to prove it. To be precise you claimed that the harm caused by religion* far* outweighs the good. The evidence you provided is completely biased and one sided. You haven’t even shown any equitable unbiased way to measure the good vs the harm. Any scientist would throw this kind of unsupported thesis in the trash.

Every time you dismiss religion as the cause of evil done in it’s name. People do horrible things in the name of religion, they say they are doing it in the name of religion, but somehow that doesn’t count.

Now you’re not just making extreme claims about religion, you’re making* false* staements about my position.
You said

No matter how many times I point out the evils of religion, you claim I have provided no evidence; you share the common religious view that evils done in the name of religion don’t count against it.

I’ve asked you to show me where I made such a claim or retract your statement.
This should be a breeze for someone like you who has such respect for evidence and proof. Don’t just restate it. Provide the quote where I made the claim or retract your statement. I’m waiting on two now.

Atheist is not the same as nonreligious. The fact that Communism was officially atheist doesn’t mean Communism isn’t a religion. Also, it shares many traits with religion; that’s why I feel justified in calling it one.

You might note that in the dictionary, religious as in scrupulously devoted, conscientiously faithful, such as “he works out religiously” or “she writes in her journal religiously” is a completely seperate definition from any spritual beliefs.
If you point is that too much blind devotion to anything can lead to serious problems then I can agree. That seems to be the arguement you’re making here rather than anything about spiritual beliefs.

And you claim that I make unfounded assertions .

I don’t just claim it. I can prove it. As I pointed out to Scott I prefaced mine with IMO. In other threads you asked me for evidence repeatedly for my beliefs. I don’t pretend that my own internal subjective evidence is valid for anyone else. I don’t ask anyone to accept my opinion about things that remain subjective. I am only expressing my ideas for the sake of discussion. Since I 'm not trying to convince anyone that “I’m right and you’re wrong” I don’t feel compelled in anyway to waste time trying to prove something I know is unprovable.

[cosmosdan]

@Scott Plaid

Actually, I think there is a diffrence between making claims he can not prove, claims he can prove but will not elaborate on, and claims he can prove but will convince people with. For whatever reason, he has chosen the second option. Don’t ask we why, but he has. Not the same thing as a baseless claim, at all.

I don’t think he can prove it. In order to do so you’d have to have some sort of equitable system of measureing the good vs. the harm, and what was religion and what wasn’t. He clearly has no such thing.

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

I don’t think he can prove it. In order to do so you’d have to have some sort of equitable system of measureing the good vs. the harm, and what was religion and what wasn’t. He clearly has no such thing.

On that note, what are some of the good things that religion does that are not merely good things humans are capable of doing on their own done in the name of religion? Kindness, charity, compassion and the like are concepts that existed before religion was created, imho.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

A large portion of humanity would rather get food and housing for free, but since that’s not an option for most of us, we go through the effort of working for a living. If religion weren’t available as a mental crutch, perhaps humanity would be forced to actual think about the big issues, which, I believe, could only be a good thing.

You’re more optimistic than I am. At best they’d “believe” in science, never understanding that real science means eternal questioning.