Summations Only

I think the real crux of the issue is the human tendency to believe unsupported assertions coupled with a strong bias towards positions of emotional preference.Religion is just a single (and easily visible) symptom of the greater disease. One could easily throw "statism," various cults of personality, and other non-religious fountains of irrational zeal into the same pot. There are plenty of irrational atheists, and it doesn't take religion to make them do bad things - the capacity for inhumanity is both ironically and tragically human.The subversion of reason in favor of authority is perhaps most obvious in religion, but it doesn't have a monopoly.

I know you've already been dogpiled, so I'll be brief.The Supreme Court is a court of law - their findings are relevant for the purposes of law, and do not dictate reality.For the purposes of legal application of freedoms, non-religion or "atheism" qualifies for exactly the same rights and freedoms that does any religion. The Freedom of Religion means that in the US everyone is free to worship according to the dictates of their own personal conscience without interference from the government, and these rulings affirm that the government has no right to infringe on those who do not worship, just as it has no right to infringe on those who do. That's all.It doesn't change the definitions of terms. Atheists still don't believe in gods. Many (most?) atheists are not religious in any consistent definition of the term, and to describe the religion of those who most typically self-identify as "atheists," an accurate analogy would be that "atheism" is to "religion" as "bald" is to "hair color."But if it makes you feel better, I could point out that there are atheist religions - Buddhists do not believe in any deity and are therefore atheists, but are certainly religious. There are many "spiritual" forms of worship, from worshiping natural spirits to ancestor worship, that do not profess a belief in deities and are therefore atheistic, but are also still religions.

Two reasons, depending on that camp the Christians in question belong to.1) "All opinions are equally valid." This type of Christian wants to equate atheism with religion so as to claim equal rational basis. It's the same as when they say "science requires faith."2) The type who believe that "religion" denotes an organized faith and is "evil," whereas "true" Christianity is some sort of "relationship with Jesus" or "way of living" or whatever. They attach philosophical superiority to Christianity over all "religions," and want to put atheism in the same box.Both groups are hopelessly deluded about even the basic definitions of the terms they use.

Not all wickedness is done for greed or power. Tribalism doesn't require any difference in wealth or control. It just requires an "other."Religious dogma spurs adherents to identify "others" that they might not otherwise identify. "Witches" and "heretics" are solely religious terms, and religious adherents have persecuted their fellow man on the sole basis of the religious dogma of the time. Let's be perfectly honest here - the women killed in Salem were not killed out of "greed" or some thirst for "power."It doesn't always happen. Neither is religion the sole source of inhumanity. Certainly witch burning and the torture of heretics have both become less popular today......but in some tribal areas in Africa, there are still, today, people, even children, accused of witchcraft and tortured and killed. Some are burned alive, some are abandoned as children to die alone in the wilds, some have had nails driven through their heads and bodies, all for reasons that can only be attributed to superstitious fear. Sure, sometimes the man telling the family that their child is a witch is charging and tells his lies for money...but the families and communities go along with it, and they gain nothing.I can bring up many more anecdotes. But don;t pretend that "it is never about religion." Of course it is. It's blatantly so if you have any comprehension of the facts, of history, and of the word "religion." If your opinion differs...well, some people are of the "opinion" that condoms spread HIV. Their opinions have little merit, and so does yours.Oh...the people spreading the belief that condoms spread HIV are Catholic clergy. Because their religious dogma tells them that contraception is forbidden. Not for power, or for wealth.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

It's interesting that you completely ignored the content of the post to which you were replying and chose instead to simply re-state your position as if no rebuttal had ever happened.Let's just take an example:"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."Now, "witches" are generally not a "tribe" or a political group (with the very modern exception of some new-age religions). They are not a "tribe." You cannot gain "power"over a group identified basically at random and only by third parties. They had no money or property to steal.A "witch" in historical terms has simply been an innocent victim, generally someone who doesn't "look right" or who is socially isolated within the community, upon whom blame can be heaped for the community's misfortunes. It's virtually identical to the ancient practice of "scapegoating," the ritual transfer of the sins of the community onto a goat who is then slaughtered or released into the wild to cleans the community of sin; a practice that eventually gave rise to the Christian sacrifice of Jesus, where a human being dies for the sins of all believers as opposed to an animal for a village.Today "witches" are identified by religious leaders within communities, and then the communities band together to kill the "witch." Often they are no more than children, and their own parents join in their ritualistic, torturous murder.I say again, there is no motivation of greed or power at play here. A "witch" has no authority to subvert; in most cases they are already at the mercy of the community at large. They have no money, as they are frequently children. Neither is it about "pride."This form of inhumanity is but a single example of how religion drives people to do evil.I'll repeat that religion is not the root cause of the problem - the root cause is that people will believe unsupported assertions and will bias their beliefs in favor of emotionally preferable worldviews as opposed to ones grounded in reality through evidenciary support. But religion is a symptom of that disease.These superstitions foment fear. This fear has no other cause - it is generated solely through the instruction of religious leaders and holy books. There is no other motive involved.As easily as superstitious nonsense can lead to harmless activities like reading a horoscope, they can also direct the irrational human mind toward throwing neighbors into a pit and burning them alive because they are casting spells on the rest of the community, and it's their fault there wasn't enough rain last season.You can maintain your position all you want, GDR. You can continue to disregard reality and repeat your pre-existing position. You'll just continue to be wrong.Would it be more convincing if I posted videos of these horrors? They rank as some of the most disturbing things I've ever seen, personally, but maybe the reality would sink in a bit more if you saw a few people beaten with sticks and burned alive while the entire community watches, on film, because they were accused of being "witches." Not re-enactments. Not fake.

Not by those who don't buy into superstition. A "witch" is by definition a religious identifier, and the directive to kill "witches" is solely a religious instruction.

Including examples when a religion specifically instructs adherents to perform the actions in question. It stands to wonder what evidence could possibly be provided that would actually qualify, to you, as evidence that religion can cause immoral behavior.You've simply decided arbitrarily that religion cannot be a cause of inhumanity, and you rationalize away even the most glaringly obvious examples. I wonder - do you apply the same exacting standards of responsibility (ie, "religion is not responsible") when the discussion turns to positive effects from religion?If religion can cause people to be charitable, then it can equally cause people to commit grievous crimes. If it cannot be responsible for one, then it cannot be responsible for the other.

And, indeed, caused by the Christian religion, as the specific things were specifically instructed by the Christian religion, both by the holy book and also by the clergy.And also by non Christian religions - certainly this isn't about bashing Christianity specifically. Untra-conservative Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and others are all responsible for various and sundry atrocities from history, and they were just doing what their religion told them to do. Nobody ever said anything about a "reduction." I have no idea what would happen about the raw number of atrocities, as such things are rather difficult to even count. This is a red herring. All that can be said about such a scenario is that "if religion didn;t exist, at least religion wouldn;t be able to cause any atrocities." It's like Hitler - atrocities still exist now that Hitler's dead, but Hitler was still responsible for the atrocities he committed.And "committed in the name of..." is another way of saying "bears a causal relationship with" when you don;t actually want to admit the causal relationship. It's just rationalized apologetic bullshit.Religion is just a single subset of "irrational nonsense" that human beings tend to believe easily. That greater set includes racism and a thousand other irrational, harmful beliefs that directly foment violence and abuse and yet are frequently not tied to religion (and yet sometimes are).The problem here is that you're denying that religion is actually a subset of that greater whole. You're saying that "sure, irrational tribalism leads to atrocities, but not religion, that's all just greed and a thirst for power!"You're absolutely, completely, demonstrably wrong when you make such arguments.Would mankind grow out of its "Crimes against humanity" phase if religion ceased to exist? Certainly not, I have not suggested any such thing in this thread.But does religion bear responsibility for some crimes against humanity? Absolutely.