The fact that you dont need religion as a morality base does not discount the fact that is WAS used as the basis for morality for the vast majority of known human history.

And who cares if millions of people were killed in the name of religion. Millions of people were killed for other even more absurd/ridiculous ideas/ideologies. This does not discount the benefit it has had to billions more. (btw, i agree that religion needs to go, but i'm not arrogant enough to suggest it does not currently have a beneficial effect). You'll have an incredibly difficult time providing that religion has been a net negative. If you are able to in a clear and concise way, you will probably be given a publishing deal of some sort, or maybe a professorship somewhere.

Finally, if you think modern society would not collapse if religion (and effectively belief in a God that cares about our morality) was suddenly taken away, you have not talked to many religious people. For them, their religion is pretty much their entire life (social, especially), and im sure youve heard many (dumb) theists say they would turn to a life of crime if their was no God. You should know that they are dumb enough to be serious.

Wat?

That's like saying, well, pre-historic and primitive groups of humans used to think that eating apples was the basis for being moral beings, and it was the eating of the apples that made them nice to each other.

I've heard this zero times

He gave you life

....and this dude

First of all, I care if millions of people are killed in the name of any ideology, and you should too. Just because religion isn't the only one that has led to tragedy doesn't reduce its culpability. I'm not sure how religion historically could be viewed as a net positive, but as I said, we can start competing lists of pros and cons and debate its merits.

I have also never heard anyone say they would abandon morality and go on some kind of shooting rampage if there were no god and I find that notion ludicrous. Do you actually have morons like that in your church? We have a structured society with a system in place to punish people who violate our laws. That wouldn't change. Without a god, they have mo afterlife to ascend to, so I doubt the vast majority of people are going to do something to hasten their death. Any minuscule increase in nutjob killings would be offset 1000 fold be the elimination of religious rivalries.

In modern society, religion is not needed except to keep its followers ignorant and wasting their time praying to an invisible entity and taking mythology as though it were the history of the world, and provide some peace of mind and hope of an afterlife. But, like I said before, if you need the idea of a god watching over you and the promise of eternal life for peace of mind, you have a weak mind.

it would do you a lot of good to not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a theist.

Meh, a lot of good? I don't think so. Anyway I said "your church" and made an assumption because I wasn't sure where you could possibly have heard someone say that as it is absurd, but if you're not a theist, ok, the rest of my post still stands.

There are plenty of examples on this forum. Here is a more recent one:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=16

There have been many instances of this (and much worse) in the past, just do your own search or ask around.

Finally, the main reason that religion is beneficial is exactly because the vast majority of people have weak minds. I hate to break it to you, but thats the world we live in.

Personally i think its bluster. But we have had a few that said without their God they would become immoral savages.

Society will not collapse. A couple idiots may do something, but will still face the same consequences they would now. The act of any nutjobs will be outweighed by the elimination of religious rivalries around the world many times over. From a utilitarian view, I don't see how elimination of religoon, assuming it happens natural and not by force, obv, would not be a net positive for the world.

this is pretty much what I said already.

Ok, your previous post seemed to say the opposite. I'm saying the voluntary elimination of religion, not removal by force, would yield a net positive from a utilitarian point of view, imo.

"That said, I believe *most* reasonable theists and atheists alike believe that a slow, but sure, death to organized religion can only be a good thing. It's something we are seeing already, and we can only hope the trend continues."

Is what my first post said.

Patton Oswalt's Sky Cake rant seems pretty relevant here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

You know, I'm really confused about this whole issue now.

I really can't grasp this Hitchensian/Dawkinsian extreme notion that all religion is nothing but evil and horror!

Religion presents nothing good? Having read both "God is not Great" & "The God Delusion" I think both authors have much to say about the atrocities of religion and of the course the misuse and abuse of Christianity! And, I agree with a lot of what they say!!! But, I also vehemently disagree with a lot of what they say too!!!!!!!!

"How religion poisons everything"- subtitle to Hitchens book and represents the fundamentalist atheist.
Nothing in religion is good!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Why the polarity?!

What of the art of the Sistine chapel, the cathedrals, the poetry, and monuments? Not just Christian I have seen the Alhambra (Granada, Spain), Seville, Cordoba and other cities and towns of Spain with Islamic art. The intricacies of their architecture and artwork and their ability to develop naturally powered fountains is absolutely sublime!

What about the philantropy?! What of the missionaries developing schools, wells,plumbing, agriculture, medicine and education to severely underdeveloped nations...all in the name of God?! My mother & others from her church smuggle in medical supplies to Malawi(literally top ten poorest nations on earth) mixed in with toys and school supplies. Why the Christian institutions in Los Angeles, the city I work as an EMT, that help the homeless?...and San Francisco?
I have visited a christian autonomous orphanage in Mexico that the Mexican government refuses to pay for. "La Puerta de la Fe" (the door of faith) is the name and it is highly innovative. They receive any child and they offer counseling services for the kids as a result of deep abandonment issues and not only strongly encourage college education but attempt to pay for the cost of the education also. Many of the kids have grown and received an education!

What about the studies of greater longevity due to belief in a higher power?

The atrocities of religion are insurmountable and anyone would shake their fist at the incredible injustice that has performed in it's name.
Both atheist and religionist can cry out injustice in the name of both ideology and religion.

But, why the polarization? Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and perhaps Shermer are extremely intelligent human beings why can they not admit any good from religion???

What has religion done for us?

Many things. But one in particular comes to mind. By classifying gluttony and drunkenness as sins it might have helped human epigenetic markers achieve more beneficial outcomes more widely in world populations.

Time magazine: Why Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny

Here: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...1968-1,00.html

Nah that would of happen anyway with or without religion.

Nope. Religion can't be totally responsible for the oppression of women but have no affect on gluttony/drunkenness at all.

Wow i think we agree on something.

The Unibomber used to help little old ladies across the street. What's your point?

Dennett does for sure. If you haven't got that, I don't know that you're paying attention to his arguments. Shermer does, but in a slightly more muted way.

Holding your child's head under water for 1 minute increases his ability to control his fear and gives him a better chance of surviving a fire or his car plunging into a creek.
It's still hard to get the "we credit his ability to him mom holding his head under water." out there.
That's because the treatment has some very bad effects that grossly outweigh them. So, we can honestly say " Submergence is bad."