The practice of organized religion has been by far the most deadly and destructive social phenomenon in the history of mankind. It's neither necessary nor practical to list all of the genocides, wars, and other atrocities carried out in the name of religion; we're aware of most of them. I'll just quickly mention The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the biological/sexual abuses heaped upon thousands of African girls from various exploitative Christian maniacs, and the murders of abortion providers as horrifying events that were and still are directly or indirectly carried out in the name of religion. Religion has many less prominent deleterious effects on contemporary society, too. Untold millions of women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities and others have been beaten, raped, and otherwise exploited by those carrying out their religious ideology.

The above is not even taking into the account the actual genocides and other atrocities committed by any alleged deity themselves, such as the remarkably brutal, bloodthirsty and maniacally murderous dictator known as the Abrahamic God.

The practice of organized religion also leads to many other violations of what one might call the "public good". We've all seen various religious nutcases refuse to wear masks and/or get the COVID vaccine during this pandemic. Would we have 100% mask and vaccine compliance in a world without religion? No, but I can't imagine one having any doubt that our numbers would be vastly better (they would certainly be better with a strict vaccine mandate, for which I advocate, but that's outside of the scope of this post).

To list all of the horrors religion has inflicted on us would take thousands of pages, so I'll stop here. But it is already abundantly clear that the practice of religion is massively harmful to society as a whole and to countless individuals within society in particular. Why do we allow this to continue?

I believe religion is a demonstration of society-wide mania and/or an indication of mental illness in those who practice it. There is no good reason to tolerate it any longer. A society without religion is one with much less exploitation of marginal groups, a much higher appreciation for science and technology, and in general would be healthier and more devoted to the public good.

Organized religion could readily be called a social disease. Let's cure it. If it were up to me, I would institute a strict abolition of all practices of organized religion. I would start with minor punishments, such as fines, but those defying this order would eventually need to be imprisoned, placed in a mental facility, or in some way removed from society at large, lest the rest of the population contract that ideological virus. This rather heavy-handed approach is bound to be the only way to ELIMINATE the practice of religion. Our current situation of society gradually becoming less and less religious with each passing generation is nice, but far too slow, and I suspect we will never achieve the ultimate goal, while also having to witness the religious stragglers inflicting untold damage on various peoples along the way.

For the record, I am not claiming that the elimination of religion would destroy all instances of violence, exploitation, etc., and would lead to some utopia. Quoting some instance of Lenin or whoever other non-overtly religious leader committing atrocities is no refutation of my argument.

Society has numerous ills. For instance, I believe that capitalism is a hyper-exploitative and inhumane economic system. But organized religion is the biggest offender and the one that should be tackled first.

I think it's generally a mistake to take a simplistic view of how religion influences people. Religion and society is in one big feedback loop where each alters the other. Religions are what they are because of the circumstances in which they're developed, viewed, and interpreted. They don't grow out of nowhere nor are they static.

I also don't even know what abolishing organised religion looks like or how it could possibly occur without a lot of bloodshed.

Abolish all disorganized religions.

1. Things carried out in the name of religion are not necessarily caused by religion.

2. Pointing out that religion has caused many evils does not show that it is by far the most destructive social phenomenon in history. This is an obvious error in reasoning. You are making a comparative claim, but ignoring all the other potential rivals for most destructive social phenomenon (eg capitalism, nationalism, colonialism, agriculture, socialism, slavery, patriarchy, racism, morality, war, tribalism, etc).

3. A historical claim like this should be evaluated counterfactually. That is, we should be thinking, what would the world be like if there was no organized religion? My priors about human nature are such that I do not expect history to be significantly less bloody if organized religion had never happened.

Okay? Presumably you don't think God actually did these though, so why should it matter?

Weird that you go from a very broad general claim (religion is the worst thing in history) to a specific relatively minor thing happening today. This point adds nothing to your thesis.

Because humans should be free to live their lives as they want, not have their beliefs and actions dictated to them by someone else.

What society without religion is this? Communism is as close as we gotten in recent years, and those societies were very ready to exploit marginal groups, and generally worse than more liberal societies.

I believe in freedom of religion and so would strongly oppose these measures. Even if I granted your premise, authoritarianism is not the answer to religion.

Could you please provide a link to a peer-reviewed article in any academic journal defending the bolded above? Thanks.

As a Christian myself, I will only speak on behalf of Christianity in my response.

I would argue that anyone who claims to be a Christian and commits any of the atrocities listed above would be clearly not carrying out a Christian ideology. Jesus Christ Himself would most assuredly join you in condemning the atrocities you listed above. The "problem" isn't with Christ or Christianity, but is rather with those who are disobeying the teachings of Christ. The problem is disobedience to Christ's teachings, not obedience to them.

Yes, someone really ignorant and/or stupid could readily call it that.

As a member of a so-called "organized religion" (Christianity), I am commanded to practice feeding the poor and caring for widows and orphans, in addition to a lot of other practices. I'm kinda shocked that anyone with any sense at all would want to abolish those practices.

Let's get down to details: How much prison time do I get for continually giving water to thirsty people? Is it a felony? Maybe a lenient judge will let me off easy with just a $500 fine as long as I promise not to give water to thirsty people any more.

I'm sure you'll be able to attend the free re-education centres.

As an atheist, I am horrified by the tone of OPs post. Sure, it can be argued that members of organized religions have committed atrocities in the name of those religions. That’s not in question. What OP is implying though is that we should FORCE members of organized religions to give up their beliefs.

OP, perhaps you are unaware of the historical irony of your position. Most atrocities committed in the name of religions were committed with the express purpose of trying to force people to believe in that religion. Trying to force people to believe anything is futile. Furthermore it’s contrary to the enlightenment principles of liberal Westrrn society.

Organized religions have produced wars and other atrocities. They’ve also produced people like Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II, who unquestionably had positive influence on society. Further, even though I don’t believe that they are divine commands, it’s hard to argue that admonishments such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “Love your neighbor as yourself” are anything other than positive ethical principles. Aside from the whole notion that forcibly trying to control the thoughts and beliefs of people is a futile and potentially damaging act, it’s not even clear that the track record of organized religion is destructive enough to merit such extreme measures.

Very well said!

Like they say, every black cloud has a silver lining.

Your love of silver sounds like you haven't freed yourself of the commodity form yet. That's a re-educatin'.

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" argument.

As another atheist, I agree with stremba.

I am happy to see organized religions just steadily decline. Mandating their abolishment, besides going against every human freedom an enlightened society stands for, would simply play into the martyr theme and the cults would be driven underground and would, of necessity, have to form a resistance. No good would come of that.

It is not a No True Scotsman argument.

A No True Scotsman argument would be, "These people who did these horrible atrocities weren't really Christians."

I never said these perpetrators of evil weren't Christians. I simply noted that they were disobedient Christians.

Yes, you are right but splitting hairs. There is an implication that a disobedient Christian is not a true Christian. Or do you contend that someone who professes to be a Christian but does not follow any of the teachings of Jesus is a true Christian?

I implied no such thing. You made an incorrect inference.

It's beyond my pay scale (as they say) to figure out who is or is not a Christian.

Having said that, I would at least be suspicious of someone who claimed to be Christian but who did not follow any of Christ's teachings.

Only God knows the human heart.

It has been said that when a Christian goes to Heaven, that he or she will in some cases be surprised about who is there and be equally surprised in some cases about who is not there.

It has been said that when a Christian goes to Heaven, that he or she will in some cases be surprised about which parts of self are there and be equally surprised in some cases about which parts of self are not there.

Fyp

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature [8] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism during the Enlightenment played a significant role in the French Revolution[9][10]), with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[11] Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class.[12] Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.

https://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Care to try again?

Since you like splitting hairs, I will point out that I made no claim that you implied anything. I simply stated that there is an implication. An implication does not necessarily require an agent to make it though, yes, it does require someone to make the inference.

By your lights, I can claim to be a christian and you cannot gainsay it, even though I state clearly that I do not believe in god or jesus. It is, as you say, above your pay grade.

I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). But then, perhaps neither does anybody else.

They aren't necessarily caused by religion itself, but they are caused by humans practicing their religious beliefs as they interpret them. Removing all of the mysticism, faith, and other irrational thinking is highly likely to reduce acts of violence society-wide.

I didn't make any attempt to prove my assertion that religion is the most destructive social phenomenon in history. Frankly, it seems just trivially true, and I'm way more interested in discussing what to do about it. This attempt to somehow separate religious belief from all these other "evils" is absurd. Religious thinking is DEEPLY intertwined with "colonialism, slavery, patriarchy, war", etc. etc. I certainly wasn't ignoring any other social phenomenon. In fact, religious practice is typically the foundation of these things.

For instance, there's no doubt the practice of slavery in America was greatly aided by Christianity. It's much easy to see another group of humans as "non-human" or "less than" when your society's favorite religious text contains many passages that can conveniently be interpreted in that manner, AND ALSO carries a weight or gravitas that no other work carries.


And my priors are different. I believe that humans are incapable of making rational short, medium, and long term decisions on their behalf and ESPECIALLY on behalf of society. Therefore we need a rather robust state system; to protect people from themselves.


It matters because many other people genuinely believe it, and some even go so far as to organize their lives around this and other religious dogmas and abuse other people in the name of said dogma.


It is true that vaccine non-compliance is a less horrifying crime than genocide. You ... got me there? But noting that religious irrationality and its awful effects on society is not just an historical phenomenon but something that still affects us all today seems quite important. I wanted to give a contemporary example. That's what noting this adds to my thesis.


This is some basic libertarian ish that has been long since refuted. Humans should be free to live how they want? Tell that to the police next time they pull you over for not wearing a seat belt (if you don't like this example, switch it with any of the innumerable instances of "freedom" restricting laws which directly benefit our society).

I will consult with my friendly neighborhood grammarian before commenting on this further.

Of course, you can claim to be anything you want, including, but not limited to, a poached egg or Abraham Lincoln.

If you claimed to be a Christian while simultaneously asserting that you did not believe in God or Jesus, I would assume either that you are as fruity as a nutcake or that you and I are using a different definition of Christian. For example, at one time it wasn't uncommon to compliment someone by calling them a "good Christian" based on that persons proclivity toward kindness and good works, even if that person wasn't a professing Christian.

No. I have no need or desire to do that, for any number of reasons.

And your argument would be fallacious. Anybody who believes that Jesus is the son of God is a Christian. Easy game. It's not acceptable to "no true Christian" other Christians because you don't like the stuff they do. PARTICULARLY when the foundational text is so deeply open to interpretation.

But really, more to the point, the Abrahamic god itself is the problem, not ol' Jeebus. The OT God is the most disgusting creature I've ever encountered in literature. This dude makes Hitler look like a newborn puppy. And I know the apologetics say all of God's genocides and crimes were apparently rendered irrelevant because Jesus went on the cross or whatever, but this vile creature does still hold relevance over the societies of Earth. And, in fact, he still gets worshipped to this day, without the influence of Jesus. Look at Orthodox Jews.

I'm far from an expert at apologetics and I'm sure these religious weirdos can quote whatever scripture to explain away all of the horrors of the Bible. But it doesn't really matter to my argument, which is that to rest one's ideology on this irrational and broken foundation of religious practice is the underpinning of much of society's faults, regardless of any particulars.