> It seems like almost every major atrocity has been religiously motivated in some way.
You seem to forget that what Stalin and Mao did in their respective countries, leading to the direct death of probably in the area of 50 to 100 millions people if not more, was completely anti-religious and can be pretty much considered as the greatest atrocity in History EVER. So, no, religion is probably not the root of all evil.
> But nothing has caused more harm and more deaths and suffering over the centuries than religion.
Colonialism and racism have also caused a significant number of deaths.
> I consider religion to be the worst human invention of all times.
I somewhat differ. I am no historian but religion does add some discipline to a society which is in a complete mess. In today's times, as long as religion is at the periphery of one's life, it seems fine. The problem arises when religion becomes life.
> For all its many failings, I think this is one of the benefits that religion (an particularly the form of religion popular in Europe during the the last 2000 years) can provide.
Europe was home to the most horrific religious violence in human history. From the pogrooms of the views to the spanish inquisition to the horrors of protestant and catholic rivalry. Even nazism drew upon centuries of european religious past.
> By having a notion of some god, and a cannon, you can have a list of ideas that everyone considers good, and it makes such demagoguery a little more difficult.
Actually it makes such demagoguery much easier as it makes it easier to demonize others - infidel, unbeliever, christ killers, apostate, etc. Religion does half the work for the demogogue.
> I take it you haven't seen what the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler did.
Hitler leveraged religion as a tool rather than getting rid of it, and did pretty much the same kind of things as the others (which is individually worse is debatable, though Hitler generally “wins” that competition), so he kind of pretty clearly demonstratee that “getting rid of religion” isn't the source of the problem.
>Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive to the larger population, in the long run.
This is simply not true. What is true is that group-think which allows people to completely disregard others in such a fashion that they are willing to murder, is destructive to the larger population.
Religion has held together many a society which would have cannibalized itself time and again, over and over. It is simply the desire to abandon morality and murder a fellow living being which must be dealt with, and Religion definitely does not have a monopoly on this facet of our social existence.
> "...we should really be wary of people using religion as justification for some seemingly unreasonable action."
yah, after thousands of years, you'd think we'd have learned by now. jesus taught humbleness, immateriality, and service to others. instead, the catholic church (as merely one example) built a global empire and brought atrocity to countless 'heathens' throughout the centuries. pope francis is certainly refreshing, but the church has a lot to atone for (and 50 billion 'hail marys' ain't gonna cut it).
> relgion has caused unfathomable turmoil and despair across centuries.
Religion has been used as a justification to cause unfathomable turmoil and despair across centuries. Even if no religion existed, wars and conflict would still exist.
Well, all, or almost all "religious wars" have historically been cover-ups for expansion of territory, power plays between populations, and money grabbing. So religion was just a pretext there.
> who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
While I cannot and will not defend everything that has been done in the name of my religion it's kind of disingenuous to discuss this without simultaneously acknowledging that more people have been murdered and tortured with a pretext of reason and lack of religion.
Actually the worst wars and killing events in history (WWI and WWII) were secular, technology driven.
And religion has cured far more than it caused. The statistics are pretty damn clear: religious people are happier, live longer, have bigger families, and score better on almost every measure of wellbeing.
Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven), all in the "holy" texts.
For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus 22:18). Luckily, there was at least:
Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is, of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough translations even on-line.
> The same people who 'seized control of religion because they believed they knew how to manage other peoples lives better' are now doing it in the new power structure.
Religion was always about managing other people's lives and making sure some of them endure the teaching to propagate the dogma.
It's not a new power structure. It has split directly from it, and it's been there for centuries.
>If you want to hold religion to account for the bad that they contribute, you also have to give them credit for the good. And I think once you start doing that, you'll find that it's all pretty much a wash.
Bullshit
Commit mass genocide? That's ok look at these shiny new automobiles.
The continued rape of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children? That's ok, we taught them math.
You probably blame women for getting raped (What was she wearing? Why was she out alone at night?) instead of blaming men for raping.
Until all of these institutions are brought down and eradicated the "damaging good" will continue.
> 1. Few human organisations nowadays promote values as bad as most religions.
It sounds like your mind is inhabited by a caricature of religion, rather than a realistic conception of the thing. For instance, our neighborhood church uses their facilities to provide (secular) services to the local community. They also organize a monthly service day where community members (not just their congregation) provide help to people in need. Many other churches do similar things. And there is a reason why so many hospitals in the U.S. have religious names: they were started by churches.
If you want to hold religion to account for the bad that they contribute, you also have to give them credit for the good. And I think once you start doing that, you'll find that it's all pretty much a wash.
> that they have the potential to bring about something similar to the Spanish Inquisition, or the witch hunts. Not all belief systems have that potency.
McCarthy, pogroms, Dreyfus Affair, Armenian genocide, Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, Lavender Scare, Khmer Rouge, Operation Condor, Aktion T4, Rwandan genocide. Holocaust.
Not all religions produce witch hunts.
> Environmentalism, for example, clearly has prophecies
Predictions. You know, the heart of a testable hypothesis? Science?
It's more accurate to say religion was misused by many leaders hungry for power, fame, or treasure.
reply