Imagine no religion/atheism.

[Hitsumei]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe religion causes homophobia. It doesn't. It enables and promotes existing homophobia the way that very little else can, though. If it weren't for religion protecting homophobia, it would be a lot harder to get away with outright acts of such bigotry in society.

Can you offer an argument for this, and not just assert it? I at least do not find it obvious. If you attempt to point to secular nations today that are accepting of homosexuality, then I can just as easily point to ancient religious societies that also were. There is also far more stigma, and less progression towards gay rights in highly secular nations today, such as Japan, China, and North Korea. The social stigma towards being gay there is far greater than in the highly religious USA.

I'm not denying that in modernity, the worst places to be if gay are the most religious Muslim countries, but it is just counter-factual to say that there is an obvious link between religion and homophobia, or that it cannot thrive just as productively in secular nations as it does religious nations.  

With due respect, the OT is 100% clear on homosexuality; it's a sin, an abomination. It is an act which god condemns. Actually, an honest reading of the Bible by a true believer should end with the conclusion that one honestly should not wear garments of different materials and all of the other rules and regulations spelled out. The dishonest religious people are the so-called cafeteria Christians (not a term I particularly like), who are ready to totally accept that a demigod could literally walk on water and come back from the dead, but that somehow the rules about the Sabbath aren't relevant anymore. And that's a commandment.

I think you misunderstood me. I said that it took a dishonest reading of Leviticus because homosexuality is no more condemned than many other things which go completely ignored by those that latch on to the condemnation of homosexuality. Why is homosexuality singled out when it is not the main focus? I did not say that it wasn't condemned, I said that all of the other things that are condemned just as furiously are ignored.

To elucidate my point I will use the flip side of Richard Dawkins' moral zeitgeist argument. He argues that people cherry pick through the bible, and find good passages that support their already held moral leanings, and that their moral opinions emphatically are not taken from the bible. Do you agree with this? I am simply suggesting that the flip side is also true -- that people cherry pick it to support their already held not so moral leanings. I think that if you accept Richard Dawkins' argument, then you are rationally obligated to accept mine -- it follows precisely the same line of reasoning.

How is his suggestion anymore plausible than mine? How does his suggestion account for the cherry picking of moral precepts, better than mine accounts for the cherry picking of prejudicial ones?  

As for your rebuke towards all non-fundamentalist Christians, that is simply a red herring, it holds no relevance to the point I am making -- though I will just say that I am more than pleased that not all Christians are fundamentalists, quite frankly.

[Will]

Can you offer an argument for this, and not just assert it?

I assumed it was just general knowledge. I was going to point out that there is a direct relationship between the level of Christianity/Islam in a country and homophobia, but you seem to think that there was some time in history that wasn't true:

I at least do not find it obvious. If you attempt to point to secular nations today that are accepting of homosexuality, then I can just as easily point to ancient religious societies that also were. There is also far more stigma, and less progression towards gay rights in highly secular nations today, such as Japan, China, and North Korea. The social stigma towards being gay there is far greater than in the highly religious USA.

Greece and early Rome were not Abrahamic in the least, they were polytheistic. Most of the earlier polytheistic religions had no issue with homosexuality, so of course they were more accepting (which kinda demonstrates my point). Severe homophobia didn't really start popping up until late Rome to the fall. The Dark Ages in Europe were very homophobic, as was a great deal of the Middle East and Northern Africa as Islam spread. Both religions preach against homosexuality, and where they both had influence homosexuality was persecuted.

The last time I was in Japan, it was clear that they didn't have a problem with homosexuality the way Americans do (though I was only in Toyko, which I would imagine could be more progressive than suburban or rural areas). Japan has no laws against homosexuality, many places in America have "sodomy" laws which include homosexuality. I think that sets us apart. North Korea represents the other major enabler of homophobia: the tyrannical state. North Korea is extremely conservative by any measure, and a part of the state's stranglehold on the populace is asserting their dominance over culture. The government, as far as I understand, links homosexuality to immoral, capitalist ideals. It's the same crap that we saw during the Cold War.

I'm not denying that in modernity, the worst places to be if gay are the most religious Muslim countries, but it is just counter-factual to say that there is an obvious link between religion and homophobia, or that it cannot thrive just as productively in secular nations as it does religious nations.

The areas in the US with the highest gay populations are generally more secular. Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Portland; all higher than average gay populations, all have a lower percentage of religious people. It thrives in areas where the likelihood of discrimination are the lowest, and in the US, that's the more secular areas. It's the same in Europe.

I think you misunderstood me. I said that it took a dishonest reading of Leviticus because homosexuality is no more condemned than many other things which go completely ignored by those that latch on to the condemnation of homosexuality. Why is homosexuality singled out when it is not the main focus? I did not say that it wasn't condemned, I said that all of the other things that are condemned just as furiously are ignored.

I was agreeing with you, albeit from a slightly different direction. My point was that because people find some of the laws (shellfish, menstruation etc.) ludicrous, they should regard all of Biblical law in that way. Those very few that do avoid eating shellfish or don't wear clothing of different fabrics or that grow their beard and that literally do nothing on Saturday (the original Sabbath), are the only ones that should be religious. Everyone else is being hypocritical, whether they're homophobic or not.

[Hitsumei]

Greece and early Rome were not Abrahamic in the least, they were polytheistic. Most of the earlier polytheistic religions had no issue with homosexuality, so of course they were more accepting (which kinda demonstrates my point). Severe homophobia didn't really start popping up until late Rome to the fall. The Dark Ages in Europe were very homophobic, as was a great deal of the Middle East and Northern Africa as Islam spread. Both religions preach against homosexuality, and where they both had influence homosexuality was persecuted.

No, this demonstrates my point, actually.    

Look at what I was responding to in my previous post, you said: "I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe religion causes homophobia. It doesn't. It enables and promotes existing homophobia the way that very little else can, though. If it weren't for religion protecting homophobia, it would be a lot harder to get away with outright acts of such bigotry in society."

You say "religion", and now when challenged fall back on specific religious, dogmas, and tenets that do not exist in all religions. So this does not support your original assertion, and I have never denied that there are some specific dogmas and tenets that can motivate violence or hatred. In fact on the first page in respond to Squid I said: "I would not be adverse to the suggestion that some specific dogmas and tenets are dangerous, and can be used to justify reprehensible acts. I am disagreeing with the invalid link from that, to "religion"."

Which is precisely what you are attempting to do here.

The areas in the US with the highest gay populations are generally more secular. Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Portland; all higher than average gay populations, all have a lower percentage of religious people. It thrives in areas where the likelihood of discrimination are the lowest, and in the US, that's the more secular areas. It's the same in Europe.

Since there exists secular homophobic nations, and there have existed religious nations accepting of homosexuality -- as I attempted to preempt -- this demonstrates nothing more than that the largest religious sects in those specific regions included homophobic leanings, and that the general move towards secularism, together with the evolution of the moral zeitgeist, has correlated to cause the impression that the two are necessarily linked, when they are not. If the acceptance of homophobia were a product of secularization, then it should have been present in all nations that moved towards secularization, but it is not -- and if it were true that homophobia is necessarily bolstered, propagated, or perpetuated by religion, then this should be the case in all nations that leaned towards religiosity, but this is also not the case.

My explanation accounts for why this is, whereas yours does not.      

I was agreeing with you, albeit from a slightly different direction. My point was that because people find some of the laws (shellfish, menstruation etc.) ludicrous, they should regard all of Biblical law in that way. Those very few that do avoid eating shellfish or don't wear clothing of different fabrics or that grow their beard and that literally do nothing on Saturday (the original Sabbath), are the only ones that should be religious. Everyone else is being hypocritical, whether they're homophobic or not.

I must admit to finding it a small bit comical how I have been repeatedly asked if other Christians consider each other "true Christians" with a air of delight. Yet, many of you seem to have no trouble dictating what is and isn't a "true Christian" without batting an eyelash.

Not ever remotely all Christian sects take a literalist approach to the bible, and the largest ones, like the Catholics have never taken the position that the bible is the only inspired word of god, or that it is literal. They have a large body of theological writing by members that they take equally seriously. Even in the most early years of the church a literalist interpretation of many of the writings was considered unreasonable.

I'm not hear to defend theology, Christianity, or any specific religious dogmas or tenets, but all because sects don't read the bible, or develop their sects dogmas and tenets like you think they ought to does not make them hypocrites. You could ask them how they can tell which to interpret as literal, and which as allegory, or metaphor, or which applied then, and what applies now -- and be completely unsatisfied with their answer. Think that it is completely insufficient, and wrong, but that doesn't make them hypocrites unless they think that the bible is completely literal, and that all of its dictates still apply, but then don't take it all literally, and do not adhere to all of its dictates. This however is a very rare Christian position indeed. Most religious people get their religious advice from their priests, pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders, and merely trust that they know what they are talking about. Calling them hypocrites (for that particular reason) is just false, counter-productive, and totally mean!  

In any case, I would rather stick to the point of my thread, and not be dragged onto these tangents by these red herrings.

[Will]

No, this demonstrates my point, actually.    

Look at what I was responding to in my previous post, you said: "I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe religion causes homophobia. It doesn't. It enables and promotes existing homophobia the way that very little else can, though. If it weren't for religion protecting homophobia, it would be a lot harder to get away with outright acts of such bigotry in society."

You say "religion", and now when challenged fall back on specific religious, dogmas, and tenets that do not exist in all religions. So this does not support your original assertion, and I have never denied that there are some specific dogmas and tenets that can motivate violence or hatred. In fact on the first page in respond to Squid I said: "I would not be adverse to the suggestion that some specific dogmas and tenets are dangerous, and can be used to justify reprehensible acts. I am disagreeing with the invalid link from that, to "religion"."

Which is precisely what you are attempting to do here.

I wouldn't call the Bible and Qu'ran specific religions, dogmas, and tenants, though. They represent the religious texts of a large majority of the planet, roughly 3.6 billion people. That's the effect of religion.

Still, my point is wider than that. Religion as a philosophy has a much wider range of influence. If Buddhism taught homosexuality was wrong, don't you think that would enable many Buddhists to indulge their bigotry towards homosexuals? Religion, all religion, enables behavior and beliefs that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. I just used homosexuality as an example and then cited how some religion has influenced people's behaviors and attitudes. It enables behavior and beliefs in a way very little else can because people take it so seriously. Imagine no religion is to imagine a world in which there would be one less philosophy to enable hatred and bigotry. Imagine no Leviticus for bigots to try and defend their bigotry. Imagine no hadith which does the same.

Since there exists secular homophobic nations, and there have existed religious nations accepting of homosexuality -- as I attempted to preempt -- this demonstrates nothing more than that the largest religious sects in those specific regions included homophobic leanings, and that the general move towards secularism, together with the evolution of the moral zeitgeist, has correlated to cause the impression that the two are necessarily linked, when they are not. If the acceptance of homophobia were a product of secularization, then it should have been present in all nations that moved towards secularization, but it is not -- and if it were true that homophobia is necessarily bolstered, propagated, or perpetuated by religion, then this should be the case in all nations that leaned towards religiosity, but this is also not the case.

My explanation accounts for why this is, whereas yours does not.

I was using homophobia as a simple example of Christianity and Islam being used to enable bigotry. And you can see mountains of evidence for that. Other religions that don't necessarily have influence when it comes to homosexuality still have the same kind of influence. It's the level of influence, the ability to enable that I think the "Imagine no religion" is referencing. It's not as simple as "religion causes bad things".

[Hitsumei]

I wouldn't call the Bible and Qu'ran specific religions, dogmas, and tenants, though. They represent the religious texts of a large majority of the planet, roughly 3.6 billion people. That's the effect of religion.

Another generalization. There are multiple sects within "Christianity" and "Islam", and arguably each individuals has their own specific dogmas and tenets that they accept that reflects their own dispositions. Are you implying that all Christians and Muslims are homophobic?

Still, my point is wider than that. Religion as a philosophy has a much wider range of influence. If Buddhism taught homosexuality was wrong, don't you think that would enable many Buddhists to indulge their bigotry towards homosexuals?

Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama has said anti-homosexual things in the past, but has restated his position to a more accepting position to conform with the times. Though, this is irrelevant. Does religion hold influence over people? Yes. Can that be conceivably used to promote hatred and violence? Yes. Is religion the only thing with influence? No. Are other things with influence any less capable of being utilized to promote violence or hatred? No.

Religion, all religion, enables behavior and beliefs that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated.

Justify this assertion.

I just used homosexuality as an example and then cited how some religion has influenced people's behaviors and attitudes.

You did precisely what I said people do. You made a assertion about all religions, and then attempted to justify it by pointing at specific dogmas and tenets that do not exist in all religions, then attempted to generalize from those. This is invalid logic. In order to justify such an assertion you need to demonstrate a negative trait that all religions necessarily share. You have -- thus far -- failed to accomplish this.  

It enables behavior and beliefs in a way very little else can because people take it so seriously.

People take politics less seriously than religion?

Imagine no religion is to imagine a world in which there would be one less philosophy to enable hatred and bigotry. Imagine no Leviticus for bigots to try and defend their bigotry. Imagine no hadith which does the same.

Do you think that allusion to Leviticus to justify their bigotry is such an excellent justification that is simply couldn't be replaced with something just as valid and convincing?

I was using homophobia as a simple example of Christianity and Islam being used to enable bigotry. And you can see mountains of evidence for that. Other religions that don't necessarily have influence when it comes to homosexuality still have the same kind of influence. It's the level of influence, the ability to enable that I think the "Imagine no religion" is referencing. It's not as simple as "religion causes bad things".

I'm taking it too literally, am I? Not seeing the allegorical, metaphorical significance?  

[AlP]

Although I'm replying to the OP, I have read the whole thread.

"Imagine no religion" commits a fallacy that is readily apparent it would seem to the atheist when it is retorted with "imagine no atheism". They both commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. It is generalized from Islam, Christianity, or any number of other religions that have dogmas or tenets that one can claim responsible for specific reprehensible acts, and then this is generalized to "religion", not those specific religions, regardless of the fact that the specific dogmas or tenets that are claimed to be responsible for the reprehensible acts are part of a specific religion, and do not exist in all religions.

I agree with you. Here's an example. Sometimes boxers are injured in boxing matches. I believe this is undesirable. "Imagine no competition". "Imagine no chess".

I will add something. Not disagree, add . Responsibility is subjective. To me it is a relation I perceive between a person or group of people on one side and a consequence on the other. The person or group of people need not have caused the consequence for me to perceive a relation of responsibility, though often they will have caused it. I would not perceive "religion" as being responsible for something because "religion" is not a person on group of people. I could but I wouldn't. I suppose it is possible I might perceive the group of all religious people as being responsible for something but I can't imagine what they would all have to do for that arise!

To demonstrate how differently people can perceive responsibility, consider this example.

Can we stop the fires? Yes we can! But it will take God’s children to rally together and repent and cry unto Him as in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (The Holy Bible). We at CTFM have seen this happen several times in the past in Australia, which was also covered by many mainstream media outlets.

In our prayer and fasting campaign, we are particularly repenting for the passing of the ‘Decriminalization of Abortion Laws of Victoria’ in addition to other unrighteous, ungodly, and unjust laws and practices which have seen a holocaust of some of the most helpless members of the human race, the unborn.

That was Pastor Danny Nalliah in a press release following the recent bush fires in Victoria, Australia. I find this quote hard to understand but I suspect he thought that those who passed the decriminalization of abortion law were responsible for the fires. If I am right, then he saw responsibility in a very different way to me. If I am wrong, I hope this example demonstrates that wildly different ideas about responsibility are at least possible.

[Will]

Does religion hold influence over people? Yes. Can that be conceivably used to promote hatred and violence? Yes. Is religion the only thing with influence? No. Are other things with influence any less capable of being utilized to promote violence or hatred? No.

This was my point all along. Imagine one less mechanism for enabling hatred and violence in the world. Imagine no religion. Except it's not "conceivably" used to promote hatred and violence, it commonly is. I justified that assertion by citing homophobia.

You did precisely what I said people do. You made a assertion about all religions, and then attempted to justify it by pointing at specific dogmas and tenets that do not exist in all religions, then attempted to generalize from those. This is invalid logic. In order to justify such an assertion you need to demonstrate a negative trait that all religions necessarily share. You have -- thus far -- failed to accomplish this.

That's not relevant. It's the continuing potential to cause hatred and violence that matters most, and it's that which is referenced via suggestion in the ad.

People take politics less seriously than religion?

You're presenting a false choice. I never said that religion was worse than politics in it's potential to incite the worst in people, I simply said religion could. It's both and not either or. The advertisement wasn't placed by anarchists, though, it was placed by atheists, so their beef is with religion.

Do you think that allusion to Leviticus to justify their bigotry is such an excellent justification that is simply couldn't be replaced with something just as valid and convincing?

Don't act as if religion can simply be replaced. Let me put it this way: how difficult would it have been to burn young women at the stake for witchcraft if there was no religion or superstition? What political or social dogmas could be imposed to recreate that so effectively? I can't think of any.

Again, "Christianity" does not enable bigotry, a specific, rather dishonest, and literalist reading of the bible does. Something that not all Christians, or Christians sects endorse. I'm not hugely knowledgeable on Islam, but I do know that it contains multiple sects, though I am more than confident than not all Muslims are homophobic.

It's the loose interpretation of the Bible that's dishonest. Either you believe the book was written by the creator and ruler of the universe or not. Either the book is correct or the book is not. If you think the ignorant, bigoted stuff in Deuteronomy or Leviticus is wrong, the entire text is fallible and thus the only option is agnosticism. Since most Christians aren't agnostic and aren't literalists, they're lying to themselves. But that's not really relevant to the discussion.

I don't agree that religion uniquely is the only thing with enough influenced to be used to promote violence or hatred -- or even that if it were to disappear off of the face of the earth, other mediums with influence could not be utilized in its stead.

I never said religion was unique in this, in fact I cited politics before as another type of belief system that can enable hatred and violence. The advertisement happens to mention one, but that doesn't mean there aren't more.

On a side note, I am enjoying our exchange, and I hope that you are as well.  

[Ihateyoumike]

On a side note, I am enjoying our exchange, and I hope that you are as well.

And I'm enjoying reading your little exchange.  

[curiosityandthecat]

And I'm enjoying reading your little exchange.  

[Hitsumei]

This was my point all along. Imagine one less mechanism for enabling hatred and violence in the world. Imagine no religion.

When a niche becomes available, the position isn't long becoming filled. I see no reason to suppose that religion is uniquely capable of filling such a niche.

That's not relevant. It's the continuing potential to cause hatred and violence that matters most, and it's that which is referenced via suggestion in the ad.

Then again, unless it can be demonstrated that religion offers a unique potential that cannot be requisitioned anywhere else -- then it doesn't necessarily follow that the extirpation of religion would result in less over all hatred and violence. In order for this to follow, religion's potential to justify hatred and violence must be unique to religion, otherwise it could conceivably be delegated to other sources.    

You're presenting a false choice. I never said that religion was worse than politics in it's potential to incite the worst in people, I simply said religion could. It's both and not either or. The advertisement wasn't placed by anarchists, though, it was placed by atheists, so their beef is with religion.

My point was that it is not either our, I was responding to your statement that seemed to imply that religion is something taken more seriously in a way that other things are not. I must have misunderstood.

Well, I don't think that anarchism, atheism, or a mistrust of religion are mutually exclusive positions.  

Don't act as if religion can simply be replaced. Let me put it this way: how difficult would it have been to burn young women at the stake for witchcraft if there was no religion or superstition? What political or social dogmas could be imposed to recreate that so effectively? I can't think of any.

Ignorance and superstition I think is sufficient. Neither of which are sufficient to constitute religion, though I know many of you may argue that they are necessary. Those are impossible to remove from the face of the earth. I an ignorant and afraid peasant, or farmer doesn't require religious permission to act on his fear of the witch living down the road.

The inquisition may have mandated, and organized witch hunts, and burnings -- but it is by no means impossible to think of a justification besides religious mandates to take such actions. Nor is religion responsible for ignorance, fear, or superstition.

It's the loose interpretation of the Bible that's dishonest. Either you believe the book was written by the creator and ruler of the universe or not. Either the book is correct or the book is not. If you think the ignorant, bigoted stuff in Deuteronomy or Leviticus is wrong, the entire text is fallible and thus the only option is agnosticism. Since most Christians aren't agnostic and aren't literalists, they're lying to themselves. But that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Taking the bible to be inspired is not taking the bible to be literal, and incapable of error -- and even if one thinks that the original scriptures were, we don't have the originals, we have copies, of copies, of copies, of copies of copies that we just so happened to find in various places all over the world, or managed to survive until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Even if one did take the view that when god dictated it it was originally perfect, it would still be reasonable to conclude that now it is not. You would need to believe that anyone who had absolutely anything to do with the bible at any point in history was also entirely directed by god.

This doesn't demand agnosticism, or all of history would. I presume that you think that plenty of historical events took place, yet they were recorded by fallible people, and are all subject to mistake, distortions, and plain forgery.

What really demands the agnosticism is the position that supernatural claims require more evidence than natural ones. Carl Sagan's position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an epistemological position, however, and not everyone shares it. You cannot reasonably criticize people for doing things that would be unreasonable from your philosophical positions, if they don't hold those same positions.

You would consider a literal and absolute interpretation of any historical document that has gone through what the bible has unreasonable, even if you did think that the original was absolutely flawless.

[SSY]

As to the point of this thread, if there were no religions, it would be impossible to incite barbaric acts in religions name, ie 9/11, crusades/ spanish inquisition etc, no?

Tautologically so, but that doesn't mean that such events could not take place, or even that they would take place less often.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

[Hitsumei]

As to the point of this thread, if there were no religions, it would be impossible to incite barbaric acts in religions name, ie 9/11, crusades/ spanish inquisition etc, no?

Tautologically so, but that doesn't mean that such events could not take place, or even that they would take place less often.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

You may think that it intuitive that that be the case, but I do not. So a demonstration is in order. Of course the best way to do that, would be to remove religion from the world, and then discount all relevant variables that may skew results, and see what happens. Too bad that is not possible. The next best thing is through deduction, and I have suggested in my above post how it can be deduced: by demonstrating that religion has unique qualities that result in violence and hatred that nothing else shares.

If neither of these can be accomplished, then your guess is no better than mine -- and I was under the impression that you'all rationalists require evidential and rational basis to believe things. Without an inductive or deductive demonstration, you have neither.

[Will]

When a niche becomes available, the position isn't long becoming filled. I see no reason to suppose that religion is uniquely capable of filling such a niche.

I never said it was unique, only that it's one of the big players. And honestly, the ad singling out religion doesn't even mean their position doesn't also allow for other, equally serious mechanisms for enabling hatred and violence. But you can't deny that it is among those most serious mechanisms for enabling violence and hatred. That's the ultimate point.

Then again, unless it can be demonstrated that religion offers a unique potential that cannot be requisitioned anywhere else -- then it doesn't necessarily follow that the extirpation of religion would result in less over all hatred and violence. In order for this to follow, religion's potential to justify hatred and violence must be unique to religion, otherwise it could conceivably be delegated to other sources.

It's a step in the right direction. Remove one of these mechanisms, and there will be one less mechanism. Remove two, and there will be two less. Assuming there are a finite amount of mechanisms, which I don't think is an unreasonable assumption, eventually there will be no more bastion for the level of hatred or violence. Moreover, there are certainly going to be people in the world for which religion is unique in it's enabling of prejudices. Should religion be removed from these people's lives, it's entirely possible that nothing would take it's place. I've even seen this change in people.

A friend of mine from elementary school, also the son of a pastor, was extremely bigoted towards members of other religions. He'd pick fights with them and ostracize them. Not long after I left religion, he did the same. He no longer has that bigotry, at all. It wasn't replaced.

Ignorance and superstition I think is sufficient. Neither of which are sufficient to constitute religion, though I know many of you may argue that they are necessary. Those are impossible to remove from the face of the earth. I an ignorant and afraid peasant, or farmer doesn't require religious permission to act on his fear of the witch living down the road.

The inquisition may have mandated, and organized witch hunts, and burnings -- but it is by no means impossible to think of a justification besides religious mandates to take such actions. Nor is religion responsible for ignorance, fear, or superstition.

That's just it, though. From the perspective of most atheists like myself, religion is the largest and most widespread incarnation of ignorance and superstition. No political belief or ignorance is as universal. It makes sense to start with religion when confronting ignorance and superstition. No offense.

[Hitsumei]

I never said it was unique, only that it's one of the big players. And honestly, the ad singling out religion doesn't even mean their position doesn't also allow for other, equally serious mechanisms for enabling hatred and violence. But you can't deny that it is among those most serious mechanisms for enabling violence and hatred. That's the ultimate point.

I don't think so. I think that religion is often used as a justification, because god is considered the ultimate authority to appeal to, but if that wasn't available, then I don't see why they wouldn't just appeal to other authorities.

It's a step in the right direction. Remove one of these mechanisms, and there will be one less mechanism. Remove two, and there will be two less. Assuming there are a finite amount of mechanisms, which I don't think is an unreasonable assumption, eventually there will be no more bastion for the level of hatred or violence. Moreover, there are certainly going to be people in the world for which religion is unique in it's enabling of prejudices. Should religion be removed from these people's lives, it's entirely possible that nothing would take it's place. I've even seen this change in people.

The only thing that is going to remove inclinations towards hatred and violence in to start drugging the water supply, or start giving everyone lobotomies. Justifications do not make people do things, they merely offer the excuse for doing it.

People change for lots of reasons. Was it you that recently was attempting to explain the loss of an allergy? And explaining how something like that has multiple possible causes, and it would be unwise to just go with what superficial seems like the causation without more evidence? I would agree with that line of reasoning.  :crazy:  

Not only is this an anecdote, and thus doesn't meet the standards of the evidence demanded by science, and I see rejected by rationalists all the time -- but are you willing to say, not even that you are sure that this was the cause, but that there could be no other plausible causes? Don't you think that something that carries the implications that concluding that religion is bad in this way entails requires a little larger body of evidence than so far has been presented -- at the very least?  

You may not care about religion, but many many people do. You have to appreciate what the implications of campaigning for its destruction with so little justification are. I wouldn't stop drinking coffee if the same level of evidence were offered for its dangerousness -- let alone do something that would drastically change my worldview, and how I live my life. I think it is just civilly irresponsible to cause such unrest based on anecdote and innuendo.  

That's just it, though. From the perspective of most atheists like myself, religion is the largest and most widespread incarnation of ignorance and superstition. No political belief or ignorance is as universal. It makes sense to start with religion when confronting ignorance and superstition. No offense.

No it does not. You're conflating correlation with causation. Most people are ignorant and carry superstitious opinions, and most people are religious. There are many many highly educated, and intelligent people who are religious. Most of the greatest minds who have ever lived. Lots of religious beliefs implies ignorance, but lots of beliefs in general do. A theistic belief does not. It isn't demonstrable that there are no gods. This isn't something anyone knows. It is perfectly possible to be completely up to date with modern knowledge, and still be a theist without rejecting any of it.

You can think they are wrong all you like, whether there is or isn't a god is not knowledge, or we would not be having this discussion.

Besides, "Secular" by no means implies less superstitious beliefs, have you read "A Demon Haunted World"? In it Carl Sagan goes over all of the superstitious beliefs in various countries, and the most secular by no means are lacking in them. Secular in no way implies less superstitious. The falling out of favor of religion in secular nations doesn't stop the thriving of regional superstitions.

[Will]

I don't think so. I think that religion is often used as a justification, because god is considered the ultimate authority to appeal to, but if that wasn't available, then I don't see why they wouldn't just appeal to other authorities.

You think something else can come along and replace the creator of the universe in people's minds? Nothing did for me. For 14 years, I believed in an ultimate power and intellect in the universe, and then I didn't. For those first 14 years, had god appeared before me and asked me to kill someone, I would have seriously considered it. Nothing has even close to that power over me now.

The only thing that is going to remove inclinations towards hatred and violence in to start drugging the water supply, or start giving everyone lobotomies. Justifications do not make people do things, they merely offer the excuse for doing it.

People change for lots of reasons. Was it you that recently was attempting to explain the loss of an allergy? And explaining how something like that has multiple possible causes, and it would be unwise to just go with what superficial seems like the causation without more evidence? I would agree with that line of reasoning.  

Nope, my allergies are still going strong. It may have been my little brother, though, he cured his asthma. Still, remove one cause and the allergies decrease. They may not disappear, but they decrease.

Not only is this an anecdote, and thus doesn't meet the standards of the evidence demanded by science, and I see rejected by rationalists all the time -- but are you willing to say, not even that you are sure that this was the cause, but that there could be no other plausible causes?

In his case? It was the cause. Unless he lied to me, which I kinda doubt.

You may not care about religion, but many many people do. You have to appreciate what the implications of campaigning for its destruction with so little justification are. I wouldn't stop drinking coffee if the same level of evidence were offered for its dangerousness -- let alone do something that would drastically change my worldview, and how I live my life. I think it is just civilly irresponsible to cause such unrest based on anecdote and innuendo.

There's a ton of justifications that have nothing to do with violence. We were just concentrating on the hatred/violence aspect. I'm glad to expand this to the whole kitten kaboodle.

No it does not. You're conflating correlation with causation. Most people are ignorant and carry superstitious opinions, and most people are religious. There are many many highly educated, and intelligent people who are religious. Most of the greatest minds who have ever lived. Lots of religious beliefs implies ignorance, but lots of beliefs in general do. A theistic belief does not. It isn't demonstrable that there are no gods. This isn't something anyone knows. It is perfectly possible to be completely up to date with modern knowledge, and still be a theist without rejecting any of it.

Correlation with causation? It's neither; it's enabling, or passive causation. While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable. It's been done on this very forum hundreds of times in myriad ways.