I was raised as a Quaker, but once I reached the age of around ~22 I knew I was an Atheist. Religion doesn't make much sense to me anymore, although it has played a large part in my life up to that age.

I understand a lot of atheists think that all religions are 'bad' and stunt development and free thought. However, Quakerism doesn't fall into this category in my opinion. On the contrary, it has been responsible for a lot of progression (George Fox meeting the Native Americans for example).

Their political system is superb. Pacifism is an essential component of being a Quaker. Free thinking is also a crucial quality that is actively encouraged.

So I don't know if all religions can be classed as bad or regressive really. Quakerism isn't imo. I'm sure there might be other examples.

Some religious groups are actually pretty badass.

Believing something without adequate justification is itself a bad thing.

Im sure Quakerism has some aspects i would find bad. Probably less then most Christian groups.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing them, but be aware US Quakerism apparently is very different to UK.

How so? In Quakerism I've never seen it manifest itself into extremism.

I dont know enough about them but its probably pretty safe to say i would find their views on sexual morality and nudity bad. Also although i like and respect pacifism, i think it can be bad in some circumstances.

Our beliefs are the basis of our actions. Accepting something as true without justification makes it more likely that that belief is false. Having a false belief makes it more likely that a decision involving that belief will be a bad one.

Such as? Modern day Quakerism is extremely liberal. I'm sure a lot of Quakers beleive no sex before marriage, but they would never force or expect their opinions on others.

By principal also, they are always willing to listen. In a meeting, you can literally stand up and say whatever you want, whatever comes to your head. I've heard people say some quite bizarre things, but people are patient, listen, and think about what was said.

I generally agree, but I have a strong belief that pacifism can solve more than people think. Look at Ghandi for example. He also was asked if he thought Hitler could have been stopped with pacifism, he said yes he could, but the cost would have been very dear. But I, and a lot of Quakers I think believe in the idea of a 'Just War'. My mother considers herself Quaker, and definitely believes in that philosophy.

I don't think that's a logical truth. If the only actions that result from this belief worthy of note are people helping others then clearly such a decision isn't a bad one.

But, I do think that in the long run it is better for people to believe in correct things. However, I truly believe Quakers are leading society in terms of progression and morality, and are basically a force of good in the world.

What if someones false belief caused every action of theirs to be a good action( of course, "good" is pretty subjective, but still, the point remains)

Of course it is. All things being equal, the person with the incorrect information is more likely to make a bad decision than the person without it. That does not mean that they will always make a bad decision, nor does it mean that they will make a bad decision every time that the person without that incorrect information does. But it does mean that they are more likely to do so. Things like helping others are typically good decisions. Religion does offer benefits. But we can gain those benefits without having to invoke religion as well. The better option is to learn why those benefits are good decisions and to leave the unjustified beliefs behind.

As I mentioned above, whether or not it is a force for good is irrelevant. We can keep the benefits while eliminating the potentially harmful unjustified beliefs. That's win-win.

Then he hit the lottery. But that does not make having unjustified beliefs a good idea. What if you shoved all of your chips into the pot before the flop without looking at your cards when the guy across from you has two kings face up? Maybe you will get lucky and have AA or draw out on him. But that does not mean that your play was a good one. It was a bad one. If we want to maximize our chance at making the best decisions possible, then we need to strive to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible.

Also, in your hypothetical the guy has no idea why his action was a good one, which makes it less likely that he will be able to apply the same rationale to other situations.

I've expressed similar views in the past about the Quakers. They have an exemplary history in the U.S. regarding their relations to the American Indians (relatively), slavery, gender equality, charity, and so on. They are respected enough among the international community to have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I also find their non-dogmatic approach to theology and non-hierarchical church structure appealing as well. For instance, you don't have to believe in god to be a Quaker. So I don't think that the unjustified belief that deorum is concerned with is as much a problem for the Quakers as for other Christian denominations.

It may not be as much of a problem for them. I'm not claiming that anybody with an unjustified belief is a monster. But it is still an unnecessary potential problem.

Sure. I'm pointing out that the Quakers explicitly reject two of the elements that make this more common in other Christian denominations--the acceptance of a traditional dogma as being in some way required or ordained by their denomination and the hierarchical authority structures that enforces or authorizes this dogma.

I thought we were talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Religion

I agree that eliminating those two things is a step in the right direction.

Close, except actually it's not the belief that's bad, it's trying to teach or convince others that irrational beliefs and thought processes are comparable or even superior to rational, evidence-based thought.

If religious believers didn't proselytize or teach their children about their religions, many of them would not be harmful to society; as it is they all are.

No, believing something that is not true is potentially harmful to yourself as well, even if it doesn't affect anyone else.

Yeah thats part of it. They see having sex before marriage as bad according to God. I think its bad not too. We disagree. They would most likely also disagree with me on governmental laws requiring clothing in public. They would think not wearing clothing in public is bad. I dont and i dont think there should be clothing laws.

Thats good. But they and i would still see some of each others ideas as bad.
I've never been in complete agreement on whats good and bad with someone.
I agree, not only Ghandi but MLK made it work. Still if its full blown pacifism that never attacks another person like some Quakers believe. I think that can be bad. Not always but can.

Many religions have lots of "good" aspects that can be pointed out, can help you develop as a person (although not always in the best of ways), or encourage free thought.

My main problem with most religions is a fervent belief and acceptance of claims without evidence or justified reason. A lifelong devotion to an unproven "truth" that colors your ways of thinking about the world, and influences your actions in it. Many negative side effects can come from that, but I wouldn't blame all religions, or claim that they all have all of the negative side effects. An over-used quote, perhaps, but "For good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

How do you explain the non religious good people who end up doing bad things? Many of them too.