When you say that you have "no need or desire to do that", should I take that to mean that you have no need or desire to provide evidence for your principle thesis?* If that is the case, then there is, of course, no reason to engage you on this topic.

*Your lead sentence in your OP:

The practice of organized religion has been by far the most deadly and destructive social phenomenon in the history of mankind.

My "believing" brothers have all told me many times that I'm a better Christian than most Christians they know. This is probably due to my volunteer work and the fact that I often go out of my way to help people. Right now, I'm trying desperately to help a family from Cameroon avoid eviction from their 3 bedroom apartment. They are being evicted because they have 6 kids. They've never missed a rent payment. (They only had 4 kids when they first moved in.)

I know they mean this as a compliment, but I can't help pointing out that I'm not a Christian at all and therefore, according to their owner's manual, I will suffer the torments of hell for all eternity. All for the crime of not believing.

I don't mean to imply it. I mean to outright state it. The practice of religion (broadly defined as any belief system which holds some "supernatural" element) should be explicitly forbidden in any humane society.

True that. Sounds bad. Maybe we should get rid of this religion thing.

I'm not trying to force anybody to believe anything. I don't really care if formerly religious people become atheists or whatever. I just don't want them to impose their (almost always deeply anti-scientific and anti-progress) dogma on all of society. And that's what almost inevitably happens with the dominant religion in any given society.

I agree that my take is contrary to a sliver of the given wisdom of The Enlightenment and mainstream moral philosophy. I'm cool with that. I'm not a huge fan of democracy. I do like most of our learned philosophy. Just not those parts.

The same Mother Theresa that performed unsolicited deathbed conversions on Hindus and others? The same Mother Theresa that allegedly did a solid impression of Joe Paterno by turning a blind eye to a Jesuit Reverend committing dozens of instances of sexual abuse on children? This second claim is not proven, as far as I know, but yeah, 10 minutes of research is all that is needed to know that Mother Theresa was a piece of ****.

(note: Mother Theresa's character has no bearing on my argument. Just find it rather amusing for her to be held up as some shining example)

Yeah, sure, but for every single harmless or reasonable command or decree issued in the Bible or any other mainstream religious work, there are ten horrifying, genocidal, monstrous edicts contained therein. I'm sure you know this.

In all my responses I keep getting bogged down with discussing the Bible and Christianity when that is only tangential to my point. What is or isn't written in these works isn't directly relevant to my argument.

It is most certainly extremely clear that the track record of organized religion is highly destructive. Ask any of the victims of the Crusades, ask the Salem "witches", ask the women and homosexuals who get oppressed daily in Muslim countries, ask any of the girls in Africa who have their clitorises forcibly removed, all of which are done in the name of, and with the aid of, organized religious practice.

I do agree that my position here is largely futile. I don't harbor any delusions that religion will be eradicated in my lifetime. But that's how this works. The people advocating for certain changes to benefit society usually die before getting to see those changes take hold. It doesn't mean the work wasn't worth it.

Frankly, that sentence you quoted seems so trivially true that there's no need for further explanation. I'm sure it's true by a factor of 10. But I will grant you that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to dilute every factor inherent in social abuses to be able to examine them individually.

In any case, I'm responding to any number of people with nobody else on my side; I don't have the time to examine every atrocity and quantitatively parse each one to see to what exact degree religion played a role in it. This isn't some dissertation. I've given countless examples of my principle argument.

I've read many of your bizarre, cheeky, revolting, irrational posts before. If you choose not to engage with my arguments, that is A-OK with me. But don't imply that I'm not arguing in good faith or attempting to not defend my OP.

That’s because you see the old man who prepares the Way as a nuisance and an annoyance, unworthy of your attention. If we see John the Baptist — who calls for repentance and baptizes us down into the underworld — as unworthy, then how will we know the man that comes after him?

https://youtu.be/7NjNOAncIlI

When I quote a passage from someone that contains an apostrophe, 2p2 messes up the formatting and adds an extra capital A to each contracted word. What is the deal?

Please give evidence for this claim. Why should these things on net lead to more rather than less violence?

I think it is weird when someone argues that we need to get rid of religion because it is irrational and then bases this claim on an unevidenced and irrational belief that religion is the most destructive social phenomenon in history. Only a few historians or anthropologists would be knowledgeable enough to support that kind of claim in a real way. I certainly can't, and I highly doubt you can either. Instead, this just seems a prejudice manifesting as bombast and hyberbole.

Slavery existed well back into antiquity, before the rise of Christianity. While Christianity didn't directly oppose slavery for most of its history, I see no good reason to think it would have gone away if Christianity didn't arise.

What I would say is that religion often props up or sanctifies the normative status quo. So if a society generally views slavery as acceptable, then my guess is that the more successful religions in that society will propagate normative structures under which slavery is acceptable. This then makes it more difficult to change the normative structure of that society into one where slavery is not acceptable.

However, I don't see anything inherent in religion that would incline it to support normative structures that are pro-slavery than anti-slavery. For instance, I would argue that insofar as contemporary organized religion is anti-slavery, it helps prop up and sanctify a normative structure in contemporary society that is also anti-slavery. In other words, religion functions more as a way to generate greater consensus and longevity for the existing normative structure of society, whatever they are.

Whether you think this is on balance bad or good depends on broad views about how conservative you think we should be of our society's moral beliefs. For a Rousseauean who views humans as inherently good and bad mostly because of the impact of society, you might favor more rapid change as that weakens the strength of social institutions. For Hobbesians, who view humans as stuck in competitions with others for scarce resources, you might favor a more conservative approach to normative structures, so as to preserve the power of those institutions.

I wouldn't say incapable, but sure, many do a poor job of it. But the rather robust state system doing it instead does an even worse job, as seen in most totalitarian countries.

I'm not aware of any contemporary Christian organization that places the God-sanctioned genocides of the Old Testament as a central organizing principle of their lives. Rather, it seems more like an embarrassment that they have to explain away.

Yeah, but you didn't really do anything here. American evangelicals have a lower vaccination rate, but this has more to do with their political identity than their religious one.

1. Supporting freedom of religion is a libertarian idea, but it is also a liberal idea more generally, supported by nearly all of the great liberal philosophers of the past regardless of whether they were more specifically libertarian (eg Locke, Mill, Kant, Sidgwick, Rawls, Berlin, Dewey).

2. I don't see how either freedom of religion or libertarianism has been refuted. I'm more interested in the former, so please show me this refutation of freedom of religion.

3. I'm not a libertarian myself. I believe in the value of freedom and liberty, especially for such crucial issues off the private life as religion and our other ultimate beliefs. However, you yourself seem to accept the logic of some of the more extreme libertarians that valuing liberty is only possible if it is the only thing you value. This kind of libertarianism often devolves into a defense of anarchy, and views any form of government coercion as a limit on liberty and thus wrong.

I reject this view at both ends - I think government coercion is often in defense of liberty or works to expand the ambit of liberty. I also think liberty is one good for society, but not the only good. I think we should also support human flourishing more generally, which means a society where people are also healthy, able to earn a good income, raise children well, treat each with respect, and so on. To my reading of history, the liberty to choose your own religious beliefs, behavior, and associations without heavy pressure from the government is an important part of human flourishing. However, this doesn't mean that I think liberty is the only good, or that we should have liberty in all things, to do whatever we want.

I'm sure that I can itemize at least as many atrocities perpetrated by organized religion as you can. If your thesis was simply, organized religion has historically been one of the principle instigators of evil in the world, then even I, as a Christian, wouldn't disagree with you. But you are making a far stronger claim than that.

I should note that I can't engage your arguments, given that you haven't actually made an argument. You've made a lot of assertions, but what exactly is the argument that I'm supposed to be engaging? Thanks.

I already correctly stated in my 2nd post that detailing some of the crimes of non-overtly religious leaders does not refute anything I say. I also happily conceded that removing religion does not automatically lead us to some peaceful utopia and that crimes and abuses would take place in any society. So take your strawman to somebody else.

Of course, a big difference in most instances is that religious dictators/rulers of state carry out their crimes ON BEHALF of or IN SERVICE OF their religion, which is almost always not the case for the non-overtly religious state rulers. The former necessarily leads to further and further abuses, which is not necessarily true of the latter.

But I don't know, I lack the desire to continue here, as I don't think somebody copy and pasting "conservapedia" really merits a serious response.

"Godless Antifa socialists attack Christian prayer meeting"
"Leftist tyrant Andrew Cuomo resigns!" (as if Andrew ****in' Cuomo is a LEFTIST instead of the basic moderate capitalist Democrat he obviously is)

Now I'm reading an article quoting some of the brilliant minds in the Heritage Foundation demonstrating that abstinence education is the proper path for highschoolers. LOL! Quite a source you got here. Abstinence-only education was refuted what, 35 years ago? Yikes.

As you said, try again. Hopefully with some type of legitimate material.

Unlike you, at least festering zit is providing data. Do you dispute his data? The only way to counter evidence against your view is with more and/or more reliable evidence that supports your view.

I would never argue what I have bolded, as I'm dubious as to the existence of what one calls "evil", but anyway, your post is a pile of hot semantics nonsense, as I have quite clearly stated an argument:

- We should take steps to eliminate religious practice in society. Religion is harmful to society (for y, x, and z reasons which have been expounded on at length), and therefore society would benefit from its removal

This is an argument, whether you like it or not. Feel free to address it! Or feel free to keep arguing on behalf of your deeply oppressive, exploitative and violent religious dogma. I don't care. Just stop with the dumb games.

I agree that the bolded is an argument, but it is not an argument that supports your principle argument in any way.

I'm making a largely qualitative, philosophical argument. With that said, I could mindlessly copy and paste "data" of thousands of instances of religious oppression. Is that really necessary? I've mentioned the Crusades, Salem, body mutilation, and many other events which are directly connected to the practice of religion. Do I need to, like, formally cite scholarly works detailing these things? Give me a little good faith, ffs.

Do I dispute his data? Yeah, quite possibly, his source is some collection of raving right-wing lunatics who wanted to leech off the popularity of wikipedia to further their revolting ideology. I'm not gonna automatically believe everything is on the up-and-up. But more importantly, in our case, IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is not really material to my argument (yes, argument). Mainly because I never argued, for one single second, that the elimination of religion necessarily leads to the elimination of all of society's ills.

I am content to let the discerning readers of this thread to decide for themselves who is playing "dumb games" here.

Quick question: How much should I be fined, or how much time should I spend in jail, for commending and defending the Christian Worldview? Thanks.

Nobody in this thread (so far, anyway) is disputing your claim that organized religion has done terrible things. But you are making a far more bold claim.

I agree that you shouldn't automatically believe it. What is your counterargument, if any?

I think everyone in this thread knows that you are not arguing that the removal of religion will eliminate all of society's ills.

That IS my principle argument. That I made a controversial (and not overtly proved by me) assertion on the first line of the OP does not negate that. I'm very deeply sorry that I did not format my informal internet posts to your satisfaction.

At some point I hope you find the courage within yourself to address the meat of my arguments, instead of continuing this tedious quibbling around the edges talking about definitions and if I've properly formally laid out my argument as if I'm vying for a PhD.

Please state the premises of the argument in which the following quote by you is the conclusion:


The practice of organized religion has been by far the most deadly and destructive social phenomenon in the history of mankind.

I'm not asking for a Master's Thesis. Everybody here agrees with your claim that religions have done some awful, terrible things. What is your argument for the bolded above? Thanks.

As history has proven, people are willing to be martyred over religious freedom. Once imprisoning people proves to be ineffective, how much more are you willing to escalate? When you say “in some way removed from society at large”, does that imply that you are willing to escalate to the death penalty? Because that is what will be required. At that point, how many dead bodies before your cure is to be abandoned?

I am not advocating for the penalty of death for anybody, including non-compliers in my imagined society. By "in some way removed", I meant some form of prison, psychiatric facility or whatever other entity might be used to separate those who practice religion from the secular society as a whole. That whole part was clunkily written by me.

The important thing here is that the body politic doesn't get infested with the "virus" of religious fervor.

I would prefer to put nobody in prison. Among other reasons, they're already overcrowded. To those who still cling to religious faith or practices after religion has been abolished, I would probably put them in psychiatric facilities. Seems like an appropriate place for them; after all, all OTHER people who go around preaching fantastical, irrational and contradictory beliefs that don't even comply with our knowledge of physics and logic get placed there (assuming they do so demonstrably enough to get noticed by other people or the State). Why should those with the definitionally irrational and unverifiable state of "religious faith" be treated so differently?

More genocides, crimes, and other abuses have been perpetuated in the name of religion, directly or not, than in the name of any other social phenomenon.

Religion has killed more people than, say, Communism. Or greed.

Of course, I cannot "prove" such an argument because all of the things which truly move human behavior are hopelessly intertwined with each other, AND there is any amount of subjectivity and unmeasurable qualities involved. That's why I say this is a qualitative, or more of a philosophical, argument. No amount of copy and pasting crimes by various leaders is gonna change that (note: it is true that a list of religiously motivated crimes against humanity would dwarf all others, though, fwiw). That's why I didn't bother to argue with the conservapedia guy on his actual "data".

1. How much would the fine be?

2. How long would the religious person be in "prison" (i.e. gulag)?

3. How long would the religious person be in the "mental facility" (i.e. re-education camp)?

4. Isn't it dehumanizing to refer to ALL religious beliefs as "ideological viruses?"

5. What German leader from the mid-20th century does your post sound like it could have come from?

Here's that "virus" thingy again.

So you say. Why should anybody believe you?

Your main thesis is not a "philosophical" claim. It is a matter-of-fact historical claim.

A friendly reminder of your claim:

The practice of organized religion has been by far the most deadly and destructive social phenomenon in the history of mankind.

I get that what I'm arguing here is quite radical. I would be somewhat content with more mundane stuff like removing tax-exempt status from churches, beefing up the separation of church and state, etc.

Back to the more radical tip; I would very much like to abolish private religious schools in America, at least K-12.

Hey, this is kinda unrelated, but why is it that we are CONSTANTLY inundated with claims like "these state colleges are INDOCTRINATING our children with leftist atheistic socialist anti-American doctrines!" but we almost never hear about such a thing in the opposite direction with high and middle-school aged kids? I was in public high school during 9/11 and I had a social studies teacher constantly going on about how evil Islam is and how we should invade their countries and etc etc etc. Then I would go to lunch and these military ghouls were actively going around campus trying to sign us kids up to fight the War on Terror. Why are these people not concerned with religious and pro-military and right-wing indoctrination of 11-18 year olds and so terrified of a left-wing version of that for 19-23 year olds?