Hammeroj said:
You'll notice that resources aren't the same as religious beliefs, and neither are competition or romance.
Name one moral thing that can be done by a religious person that can not be done by a non-religious person. Then try and attempt the opposite. Why you even attempt this moral value thing is beyond me. You are aware that "the Good Book" promotes activities ranging from child beating to genocide for little more reason than disobeying authority, are you not?
I never once said that ONLY religion can promote reality, I even acknowledged that in my reply, which you decided to skip over. And hell, if there's any better analogy to use in this situation than romance, I don't know what it is.
From a practical viewpoint, it's useless. You don't need a monogamous relationship to create a child, you just need a relationship for five minutes. After that, the mother can take care of it on her own or with her own family. Or give her child away to an entirely different family. Many would say those circumstances don't matter, that kid could turn out perfectly well. Having parents is not 'necessary'.
But the nuclear family is stable, a mother and a father (Or two mothers, or two fathers, I'm not going to judge) raising a child in a loving home is, while I'm not being as scientific about it as I'm sure you'd like, very beneficial to that child. But it may not always work out that way.
Love can fade and lead to adultery or divorce and you can ruin a child's life, even have a motive for murder (one of the oldest one's in the book) - but should we strive to phase out committed relationships because you don't personally like it or there are other ways to raise a child? What we can try to do is push against needless violence, wherever it appears and whatever the cause.
I sure do think it's silly, because:
A) There is zero evidence for any of the world's religions;
B) The big western one, at least, contains dozens and dozens of contradictions both in its ideas and in its asserted facts.
You saying I want it stamped out for being used for the wrong purposes implies that there is a "right" purpose for religion. Explain that purpose to me, and then explain why that purpose is right in the first place.
If this were some completely benign thing that didn't impede critical thinking, like, say, preferences in art or pastime, I wouldn't have a problem with it. This is something that claims truth without evidence and has very real results on people's minds. As it is, there are tens of millions of drones in the supposedly greatest country of the world who were conditioned right from their childhood to take things on faith, whether it's what their parents told them as a kid, or a preacher tells them now. No doubt you know of the problems plaguing the US politics and policy.
I'd more blame US politics on the fact that the government and corporations are tightly entwined, given that most people holding federal elected office are millionaires. One side bribes the other, the other side implements laws to benefit the other. And it's not just Republicans that do this, and it has not just been going on since 2000. There is certainly a blind faith in authority, but the authority brandished is rarely God these days.
I can imply causation in the increased understanding of and ability to use reason and the scientific method versus the decreasing religiosity, but violence, no, you're right.
I bet you find exactly as many stupid people who are religious as you do those that are atheists. Just because you believe in God does not mean you're an idiot, no more than not believing in God means you're a genius. Of course, you may disagree and think folks who think like you do are awesome and folks that don't are idiots. But that's just tribalism.
I didn't say that you're not free to claim it, I said you're wrong. And you are downright wrong. Religious beliefs do shape the very understanding of reality in its believers, the fact that you refer to it as just a justification implies that you either think religious belief isn't real, a ruse on the part of believers, or don't actually think that and have nothing better to say.
And yet as has been said, just because you claim to be religious does not mean you are a devout bible-thumper that follows every word to a T. A lot of things are about shades of grey, you can believe a lot, you can believe a little, you could not believe at all. I'm sure even atheists believe in unreasonable things, so long as they're people.
