It’s notable that as Science![tm] came to be considered authoritative, people put less effort into religious justifications for racism and more into the various pseudoscientific twaddle described in Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man.
You are confusing religion and spirituality as I read it. Religion is basically a set of rules that man has invented to share and sometimes enforce on others. In many cases it is like secular laws - this can been seen very clearly in societies that redefine words, such as some communist states redefine truth to mean anything that advances the state. As such religion can be hijacked for purposes not of God. Spirituality is a direct interaction with supernatural entities on a personal level, bypassing the laws that man has created.
Belief that slavery is wrong caused the Civil War. If nobody had thought there was anything wrong with slavery, there wouldn’t have been anything to fight about.
Do you still believe that slavery is wrong, now that you know what that belief caused?
People will always find ways to justify their horrible behavior. If not religion then some religion substitute, like communism or nationalism.
Many devout Christians know what religion has caused throughout history, both the negatives and the much greater positives. And we stick with our faith, so that answers your question.
Here’s a question I wonder about. How many atheists would still be atheists if they knew what crimes atheists had committed throughout history?
False comparison. Atheism is not an ideology, it doesn’t tell people to do anything, or NOT do anything. Religion does.
While it may not explicitly have commandments, it does have one very dangerious and historically destructive element, that being there is no higher power then man, therefor man gets to decide what shall be done.
So who decides what God wants?
Roughly a similar percentage, I would wager. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
Deciding to bow to a god’s will is in and of itself a decision of man, one that must be made by every religious person. And while I believe in no higher power, I do believe in a higher code than just man, and I imagine many atheists would agree that their moral system is superior to those of others.
I’d be interested to know what the *implicit * commandments of atheism are.
Man gets to decide what gets done anyway, since there isn’t any God. Doing “God’s Will” is just taking YOUR will and sticking the God label on it, or mindlessly following what some other person or a book tells you God’s Will is. This is one reason why religion is largely incompatible with morality; you aren’t going to be moral if you are convinced your own desires are absolute truths. Nor if you are simply following orders.
And no, the Communists weren’t evil because they were atheists, since I expect that’s what you are getting at with “one very dangerous and historically destructive element”. They didn’t do what they did out of atheism; being nothing more than disbelief in god, atheism can’t motivate anyone to do anything. They acted in the name of the ideology of Communism, which isn’t the same as atheism.
I’d say that one is to find a categorical moral imperative. At least that’s what (I think) **Gaudere ** used to say.
So you think there’s a possibility you’re wrong about religion?
If not atheism, then what is it that motivates your particular hatred and bigotry?
I would say that’s an implicit commandment of human existence rather than atheism. 
While that’s true, among the accouterments of the typical deity are firm opinions about what humanity should or should not be doing. Even if the religion in question does not have a specific supernatural entity, still its conceptualization of how the Universe works metaphysically acts to function in the stead of such deity-opinions, as in the Four Great Principles and Eightfold Way of Buddhism.
Only those who deny a supernatural metaphysic of some sort, or at least knowledge of it, are obliged to find a categorical moral imperative – for the others, it comes table d’hote as part and parcel of deity and/or metaphysic.
How many religions do you know that teach that? Certainly not Christianity in any of it’s forms. Quite the contrary; Christianity warns people that they may endure great hardship and persecution if they choose to steadfastly follow the faith.
A great many early scientists were overtly religious – for example, Sir Isaac Newton (who wrote more on theology than he did science), Johannes Kepler, Sir Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, and even Galileo himself. In fact, they were often motivated by a desire to explore the majesty of God’s creation.
As philosopher Kenneth Boyce said,
"Christianity emphasizes the beliefs that the universe was freely created by God and that human beings were created in God’s image. Together, these two doctrines encouraged the belief that the universe is a rational place that can be investigated by human beings, but also, since it was freely created by God, something that had to be investigated through observation and not just through pure reasoning. This is because if the universe was freely created by God, then the logical possibility exists that it could have been otherwise, and so we have to look and see which way it really is. It was a Christian view of reality, then, that helped sow the seeds of the development of what we today would call the scientific method. "
As for Galileo, it is a gross oversimplification to say that the church simply wanted to silence him for his views. Galileo was a personal friend of Pope Urban VIII, and so Galileo received his blessing to write his text, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632). This featured a dialogue between defenders both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models. In his usual abrasive manner though, Galileo depicted the Ptolemaic advocate as a bit of a dullard who closely resembled Pope Urban VIII himself. This naturally incurred the Pope’s ire.
Did the Pope react irrationally and emotionally? Certainly. My point is that this isn’t simply a case of the Pope deciding to silence contrary scientific views, as laypeople (and especially anti-religionists) are wont to claim.
Somewhat less chance than the possibility that I’m wrong about gravity not being due to invisible goblins holding me down by the ankles. Religion is simply that utterly silly.
I’m not bigoted, I’m in the right, and honest. I refuse to pretend that religion isn’t stupid and evil in a society that deems that viewpoint taboo. And I hate religion because of the things it has done and is doing. I’d hate religion even if there WAS a God.
And again, there’s no way atheism could motivate me or anyone, because it’s just one belief. It doesn’t even specify that the nonexistence of gods is a good or bad thing, just that there is no such thing.
Probably about the same as the number of people who eat green beans that would quit eating them if they found out Charles Manson ate a green bean…
Yes I would since I don’t take manking seriously and I don’t blame God for mankind’s misunderstanding of what their religion is about. If people focused more on God and Jesus and did not take the actions of man so seriously, then they could see the big picture. The Church is bigger than any man’s actions. It’s not about man, it’s about Christ. Christ is the church…stay focused on Christ and everything else will fall into place.
Are you saying that the world would be a better place if everyone believed as you do?