conservatives = ISIS

[exploited]

Er, no. Dawkins can be an asshole, but the thing is, he isn't even wrong. Religion is an extremely harmful practice that will ideally be eradicated from Western society in the next couple of centuries.

[eynon81]

[exploited]

1. Encourages the belief in non-spatiotemporal realities, which in turn supports illogical thinking about the nature of consciousness, human existence, etc.

2. Removes onus of formulating your own moral sensibilities, basic rules of behavior instead to be provided by Jesus, Muhammed, etc.

3. Encourages sectarian and divisive social organizations.

4. Has historically been used to justify every type of atrocity imaginable.

5. Provides creation myths that are at odds with scientific knowledge, which in turn results in subpar educational attainment.

6. Provides a minimal benefit that is better provided by rational ethics and introspection.

So, to summarize, it encourages illogical, divisive thinking and behavior, which has known and observable negative effects on the advancement of science, rational thinking and personal ethics.

[Philly]

7. Makes the non, one of the most benevolent dudes of earth, defend nazis and child raspists

[John Galt]

i've recommended this book before but look, some asshole put it out on the internet for free anyway

http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2013/SOC1 ... s_Mind.pdf

he makes a point of how religion binds and blinds, but he doesn't mean it's all a bad thing. you see, it's the sense of belonging, not the sense of belief, that is the source of goodness from religion, the thing that has helped civilization out of the darkness. in his chapter eleven he says this "Morality binds and blinds. Many scientists misunderstand religion because they ignore this principle and examine only what is most visible. They focus on individuals and their supernatural beliefs, rather than on groups and their binding practices. They conclude that religion is an extravagant, costly, wasteful institution that impairs people’s ability to think rationally while leaving a long trail of victims. I do not deny that religions do, at times, fit that description. But if we are to render a fair judgment about religion—and understand its relationship to morality and politics—we must first describe it accurately." then explains it. it's an awful long explanation replete with maypoles and football games but i do think it offers very interesting insights. he attacks Dawkins and the "New Atheists" as not seeing the forest for the trees

it's a great book just read the whole thing. AND NOW IT'S FREE. do it. do it.

[exploited]

Well, yeah, religion has been a method of social organization forever, and people have been using it to network before networking was even a thing. That isn't much of an observation IMO. I could say the exact same things about any harmful belief which people organize around. Hell, this desire to belong to a community of like-minded people is one of the driving forces of civilization, nation states, peer groups, etc.

[John Galt]

[exploited]

It's not really different, except that it is authority derives from a Godhead, which accounts for why it is so consistently harmful.

For instance, keeping your hair cut at the same length is something the military does to recruits. It replaces individuality with a sense of social cohesion. Similarly, goths and punks and all sorts of subcultures adopt a "uniform" of sorts.

The issue is the unique nature of religious beliefs and how they always require suspension of disbelief. This makes people very open to suggestion, and allows religious authorities a lot of leeway in manipulating them.

[John Galt]

religion is 'freely' entered into and you can 'freely' leave. i put it in quotes because beliefs in fake dieties are what keep people there but they CAN leave. the military is not a type of group that is similar. you leave and you can be executed as a result. (well okay in islam apostasy is punishable by death but they are all about killing people)

[The Dharma Bum]