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.
> I also wonder whether religious groups who don't accept blood would potentially accept this.
Religion is a disease on its own.
If it actively hinders your survival and well-being, what else would you classify it as? It belongs with depression, schizophrenia and all the other psychological disorders.
> 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.
> Religion shouldn't be criticised simply for having a framework for moderating response to desire, and because it offends some sacred cow of "natural" desire.
Oh I'm not criticizing religion for having a framework. I'm criticizing it because it's the wrong framework. Of course some natural desires must be regulated. That's just self control. People don't need unprovable superstitions to stop killing each other. For whatever small crumbs of peace religious harmony may have brought religion has brought plenty of excuses for war, murder, and hatred.
> But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store
Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.
> 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.
> While moral codes are often a huge part of religions they are also a huge part of other groups of society, such as animal rights groups, labour unions and even criminal organisations.
Very true indeed, but I think that religion still deserves particular attention because it's the most prominent institution that promotes believing claims without evidence as a virtue, in particular in the area of morality, which paves the way for others promoting their equally insupportable claims. Religion is the major obstacle that prevents people from understanding that what is moral is a scientific question that has just as much an objectively correct answer as the question whether jumping from a tall building will increase your well-being or not.
>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.
> I'm not a religious person, but the thing that the anti-religion movements have failed spectacularly at is providing a universal, teachable framework for basic morality.
Given the numerous genocides committed in the name of religion, I would reckon that religion has failed to do so as well.
> "...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).
> Religious practice is fine but withholding a secular education from children or ditching modern medicine, or attacking the rights of women or exercising corporal punishment isn't.
So a religion is fine as long as it is watered down to the point it does not teach what is right.
> However, it isn't yet obvious that it can be done without - a religion's adherents are often people who want some sort of power structure telling them what they should do to be a good person.
There are countries where the majority is not religious and they function just fine.
>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.
> Historically, the village church wasn't just about worshipping the sky father and shunning non-believers. It was the original social safety net and the congregation would support people who were experiencing hardship.
So because charity in the past had these massive strings attached in the past today we should do what exactly?
Modern social safety nets are more widely available and free from guilt trips, controlling busybodies, and harmful superstitions.
> By rejecting all religion and vacating churches we've sort of thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We've damaged everyone's need for belonging and increased loneliness.
IME far more emotional and physical harm was done by centuries of religion than this brief interm period between when they've been thrown off and the establishment of saner institutions and memes.
McDonalds may not be the picture of healthy food options, yet as an established at least they don't encourage shaming or ostracizing people for being different. A relatively clean, dry, and welcoming place to meet isn't a bad thing.
As does medicine, if you think about it.
reply