al-Zarqawi - "War on Democracy"

[DOOM]

There could be many reasons for how many people a movement end up killing. I'm also not sure what numbers you are referring to, as far as I know Christianity may well have killed more people. And even if it didn't kill more in absolute numbers, that could just be because there weren't as many people around to kill.

After doing a quick Google search, I found this link:
http://www.islam101.com/humanRelations/mcrtGaB.htm

It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades.  Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2.  That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed.  If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that.  The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism.  And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well.  In National Socialism, the state is all important.  Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal.  So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists?  Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.

[Adron]

My views on this: God knows everything that is going to happen before it happens right? Yet it was your actions that made you loose the money, the fact that you lost it might have been in the will of God (he might have been trying to tell you not to gamble), but obviously the Tsunami was not the fault of the people who died in it directly. There are some differences here.

There are differences, but not in principle, just in numbers. The chance of a Tsunami happening at the same time you're in the area is much much smaller than the chance of losing money in a game, but in both cases it's about chances. If god knows both in advance, he could warn you not to stay near the beach at the time of the Tsunami. Just as he could warn you not to wager your money on the throw that you lost.

And I actually thought god was considered to be able to affect things, not just have knowledge of them.

[Adron]

It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades.  Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2. That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed.  If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that.  The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism.  And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well.  In National Socialism, the state is all important.  Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal.  So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists?  Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.

World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.

Like I said, you need to put the 200000 civilians killed during the crusades in relation to the number of people available in those days, and the efficiency of their weapons.


Finally, my point wasn't about how many people are killed in this or that conflict. I wasn't talking about religion used as an excuse for wars but religion used as a tool to motivate people to do things. Good things, bad things, anything, without thinking.

[quasi-modo]

It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades.  Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2. That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed.  If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that.  The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism.  And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well.  In National Socialism, the state is all important.  Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal.  So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists?  Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.

World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.

All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.

[Adron]

All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.

That's religious. It's part of some religions that you belong to the chosen people by being born by parents belonging to the chosen people. If you're chosen to own land or chosen to die, that's the same thing. But like you say, religion isn't really just about god and beliefs. It's used for various reasons. In this case, to identify a group to kill.

[quasi-modo]

All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.

That's religious. It's part of some religions that you belong to the chosen people by being born by parents belonging to the chosen people. If you're chosen to own land or chosen to die, that's the same thing. But like you say, religion isn't really just about god and beliefs. It's used for various reasons. In this case, to identify a group to kill.

My point was it is not a religion... it is an ethnicity.

[DOOM]

World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.

Now you're really stretching.  Before you were trying to blame religion for the wrongs in the world, now because fascists targeted jews, it's the same thing because jews are religious...?  Like someone else pointed out, Hitler killed Jews whether they practiced their religion or not.  He didn't care.  And I already pointed out that Hitler was planning on phasing out religion all together because it stood between him and his plans for totally dominating the people.

And what does the religious beliefs of those in the trenches have to do with anything?  They weren't the ones who started the war.

Like I said, you need to put the 200000 civilians killed during the crusades in relation to the number of people available in those days, and the efficiency of their weapons. 

Maybe you need to take that into account, but you can't ignore the insane amount of people killed either by the Nazis and communists either.

Finally, my point wasn't about how many people are killed in this or that conflict. I wasn't talking about religion used as an excuse for wars but religion used as a tool to motivate people to do things. Good things, bad things, anything, without thinking.

You can find people that blindly follow any belief system, it doesn't have to be religious.  You can also find plenty of people that don't blindly follow a belief system, they follow it because they choose to.  You don't seem very open to religion, maybe atheism or agnosticism is causing you to reject it without thinking.  You can turn anything around to try to dismiss someone else's beliefs offhand.

[Adron]

Now you're really stretching.  Before you were trying to blame religion for the wrongs in the world, now because fascists targeted jews, it's the same thing because jews are religious...?  Like someone else pointed out, Hitler killed Jews whether they practiced their religion or not.  He didn't care.  And I already pointed out that Hitler was planning on phasing out religion all together because it stood between him and his plans for totally dominating the people.

And what does the religious beliefs of those in the trenches have to do with anything?  They weren't the ones who started the war.

It has to do everything with what I'm trying to say: Religion as a means to motivate people to do things. But let's abandon all the war and death counts, since they're not really important to the point anyway.

You can find people that blindly follow any belief system, it doesn't have to be religious.  You can also find plenty of people that don't blindly follow a belief system, they follow it because they choose to.  You don't seem very open to religion, maybe atheism or agnosticism is causing you to reject it without thinking.  You can turn anything around to try to dismiss someone else's beliefs offhand.

Could you give me some examples of belief systems that are blindly followed without being of the religious kind? It seems to me that religion is the one totally dominating type of belief system that expects you to follow just because (a higher power wants you to / god will reward you / your afterlife will be better / insert other non-existant reward)

[DOOM]

It has to do everything with what I'm trying to say: Religion as a means to motivate people to do things. But let's abandon all the war and death counts, since they're not really important to the point anyway.

Yeah, I am sure you want to ignore wars and death counts: they contradict your little theory.  For all motivation and evil intentions you try to tell us are in religion, you want to quickly sidestep the far greater evils that have been unleashed upon the world that were not religiously motivated.

Could you give me some examples of belief systems that are blindly followed without being of the religious kind? It seems to me that religion is the one totally dominating type of belief system that expects you to follow just because (a higher power wants you to / god will reward you / your afterlife will be better / insert other non-existant reward)

What about political idealogy?  There are plenty of people that will just fall in line with what their political party tells them is right without thinking on their own.  What about laws?  Plenty of people blindly follow the law simply because it is "the law" without beginning to consider why it is the law.  There are people in abusive relationships that will do whatever their abusive partner tells them to do.  You can find examples of people being controlled by pretty much anything.  It isn't difficult.

[Adron]

Yeah, I am sure you want to ignore wars and death counts: they contradict your little theory.  For all motivation and evil intentions you try to tell us are in religion, you want to quickly sidestep the far greater evils that have been unleashed upon the world that were not religiously motivated.

No, they do not actually contradict my theory. Religion has caused much suffering throughout the world, and many wars, conflicts and misunderstanding. A recent example is how Bush used religion to motivate americans to fight the war against terror. A crusade against evil. Evil against evil.

And actually, I don't claim that religion is the root of all evil. That some evil is not based on religion doesn't say anything about whether religion is good or bad.

Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).

And apart from that, religion is used to slow down progress on stem cell research, abortion, gay relationships etc.

What about political idealogy?  There are plenty of people that will just fall in line with what their political party tells them is right without thinking on their own.  What about laws?  Plenty of people blindly follow the law simply because it is "the law" without beginning to consider why it is the law.  There are people in abusive relationships that will do whatever their abusive partner tells them to do.  You can find examples of people being controlled by pretty much anything.  It isn't difficult.

Political ideology, yes, falling in line without thinking on their own is bad. And the "Politically correct" is a curse. It's almost as bad as religion.

Laws, well... They are supposed to be less restrictive and more adaptable than religion. Of course, there are religious laws as well. Very bad. Religion and laws are very similar in many ways - the big difference is that religion is less flexible. Today you might forbid some kind of food because it's dangerous. In the old days, pork was forbidden in some religions, most likely since eating pork could transfer diseases / parasites. Today, hygiene has improved and there's no longer a need for the prohibition, but because it was made religion instead of just law, it's not possible to change. That's why religion is much worse than laws.

Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.

[DOOM]

No, they do not actually contradict my theory. Religion has caused much suffering throughout the world, and many wars, conflicts and misunderstanding. A recent example is how Bush used religion to motivate americans to fight the war against terror. A crusade against evil. Evil against evil.

Religions also do a lot of work to ease suffering throughout the world too.

I don't know that religion was the motivating factor...  Some asshole killing thousands of my fellow citizens was enough for me.

Critics of the Bush administration do confuse me though.  One minute they say he is leading a holy war against the poor poor Muslims, but they next they say how he is in bed with the Saudis...

Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).

Religion itself is a rather abstract idea.  It seems to me that it is a great deal easier to blame an abstract concept for all the wrong in the world rather than to lay the blame on the individuals that actually commit the wrongs.  It reminds me of the Columbine school shooting.  I don't know how many articles I've read by people trying to lay the blame on some band that the two shooters listened to or some video game that they played.  How about blaming the shooters?  How about blaming their parents for not noticing that their children were nuts?  How about blaming the kids that beat the piss out of them every day?  How about blaming the school that did nothing to stop the beatings?  People don't like addressing tough questions.  Not in school shootings and not in war either.  It's much easier to blame "religion" that to blame someone like the individual that causes the problem.

And apart from that, religion is used to slow down progress on stem cell research, abortion, gay relationships etc.

But that assumes that those things are "good."  One doesn't have to be religious in order to oppose any of those either.

Political ideology, yes, falling in line without thinking on their own is bad. And the "Politically correct" is a curse. It's almost as bad as religion. 

We definitely agree about political correctness. 

Laws, well... They are supposed to be less restrictive and more adaptable than religion. Of course, there are religious laws as well. Very bad. Religion and laws are very similar in many ways - the big difference is that religion is less flexible. Today you might forbid some kind of food because it's dangerous. In the old days, pork was forbidden in some religions, most likely since eating pork could transfer diseases / parasites. Today, hygiene has improved and there's no longer a need for the prohibition, but because it was made religion instead of just law, it's not possible to change. That's why religion is much worse than laws.

Is religion less flexible?  Plenty of religions spawned off of other religions because people didn't agree with certain practices.

You seem to lump all religions in together instead of evaluating each one on an individual basis.  My religion doesn't attempt to restrict me from eating pork, for example.

Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.

The actual ideals expressed in religious texts, such as the Bible, tell us to love people, not to hurt them.  If someone twists religion and uses it as a tool, it is the person who twisted it who is at fault, not the concept of religion.

[Adron]

Religions also do a lot of work to ease suffering throughout the world too.

That is the only good thing about religion. Sometimes it can help ease unavoidable suffering. But there isn't a far distance between "helping ease people's unavoidable suffering" and "helping keep people content with suffering instead of doing something about the root cause of their suffering".

I don't know that religion was the motivating factor...  Some asshole killing thousands of my fellow citizens was enough for me.

Critics of the Bush administration do confuse me though.  One minute they say he is leading a holy war against the poor poor Muslims, but they next they say how he is in bed with the Saudis...

Maybe that's his nature? Leading a holy war against poor people, yet allying himself with the devil when the devil offers good stuff? But, that's the topic of an entirely different discussion.

Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).

Religion itself is a rather abstract idea.  It seems to me that it is a great deal easier to blame an abstract concept for all the wrong in the world rather than to lay the blame on the individuals that actually commit the wrongs.  It reminds me of the Columbine school shooting.  I don't know how many articles I've read by people trying to lay the blame on some band that the two shooters listened to or some video game that they played.  How about blaming the shooters?  How about blaming their parents for not noticing that their children were nuts?  How about blaming the kids that beat the piss out of them every day?  How about blaming the school that did nothing to stop the beatings?  People don't like addressing tough questions.  Not in school shootings and not in war either.  It's much easier to blame "religion" that to blame someone like the individual that causes the problem.

Columbine shootings, well... You bring up a lot of things. In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.

But that assumes that those things are "good."  One doesn't have to be religious in order to oppose any of those either.

True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.

Is religion less flexible?  Plenty of religions spawned off of other religions because people didn't agree with certain practices.

You seem to lump all religions in together instead of evaluating each one on an individual basis.  My religion doesn't attempt to restrict me from eating pork, for example.

Yes, religion is typically less flexible.

When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.

When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.

Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.

The actual ideals expressed in religious texts, such as the Bible, tell us to love people, not to hurt them.  If someone twists religion and uses it as a tool, it is the person who twisted it who is at fault, not the concept of religion.

The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.

The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.

[DOOM]

That is the only good thing about religion. Sometimes it can help ease unavoidable suffering. But there isn't a far distance between "helping ease people's unavoidable suffering" and "helping keep people content with suffering instead of doing something about the root cause of their suffering".

I can't speak for everyone (even if you seem to think you can), but when my church collects supplies to help people, there's no secret meeting in the basement where we discuss about how we're going to send them just enough to keep them content so that the poor become de facto slaves to the church.  People at my church seem genuinely interested in easing the suffering of others.

Columbine shootings, well... You bring up a lot of things. In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.

What is the "root cause?"  I played the video game DOOM.  I listen to Marilyn Manson.  My family owns guns.  Those were the things the media wanted to blame.  Yet, I and the thousands of others like me don't go around shooting up schools. 

True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.

I am curious.  What would your response be if I said: most blacks are stupid people that can barely speak English and the only thing most of them are good for is to play sports.  Most people would be offended by that assertion.  They would label it as racist and at the least would say that it is an unfair, ignorant generalization.  Yet you repeatedly make generalizations about religious people.  I don't think you have a clue who the "typical" religious person is.  If all religions want to control your life, why are some okay with homosexuality?  And why even in religions that are against homosexuality can you find plenty of people that support it?  You know there are a lot of Catholics that vote Democrat, right?  Plenty of Catholics believe abortion is okay.    And that's just in the Catholic church, one of the more conservative branches of Christianity and one of the historically most repressive branches of Christianity.  If their followers are "allowed" to think for themselves and decide what is right, if not all of them can agree on what is right, then how in the hell does that mean that religion is "controlling" everyone?

Yes, religion is typically less flexible.

When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.

When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.

I know plenty of people from different branches of Christianity.  They all eat pork.

The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.

Wrong.  There are plenty of stories in the Bible that involve "questioning."  I don't recall any story that involves God smiting someone for asking a question though.  And again, you're talking about individual people promoting following instructions without questioning.  That isn't how most religious people act.  Nor do I hear most religious people using the "weight of God" to back up their opinions.  I don't know what sort of bizzaro world you live in, but I'm glad I'm not there.

The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.

That's your opinion that it's "all just a lie."  In my opinion, that seems a little narrow minded.

[Adron]

I can't speak for everyone (even if you seem to think you can), but when my church collects supplies to help people, there's no secret meeting in the basement where we discuss about how we're going to send them just enough to keep them content so that the poor become de facto slaves to the church.  People at my church seem genuinely interested in easing the suffering of others.

Charity is nice. There are plenty of charity organizations that aren't religious, so that's nothing specific to religion. When I said "ease unavoidable suffering", I was not speaking about physically supporting people. I'm speaking about easing suffering on purely religious grounds, based on faith.

In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.

What is the "root cause?"  I played the video game DOOM.  I listen to Marilyn Manson.  My family owns guns.  Those were the things the media wanted to blame.  Yet, I and the thousands of others like me don't go around shooting up schools. 

I highlighted the areas in what you quoted from me where I said that there is no one root cause.

True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.

I am curious.  What would your response be if I said: most blacks are stupid people that can barely speak English and the only thing most of them are good for is to play sports.  Most people would be offended by that assertion.  They would label it as racist and at the least would say that it is an unfair, ignorant generalization.  Yet you repeatedly make generalizations about religious people.  I don't think you have a clue who the "typical" religious person is.  If all religions want to control your life, why are some okay with homosexuality?  And why even in religions that are against homosexuality can you find plenty of people that support it?  You know there are a lot of Catholics that vote Democrat, right?  Plenty of Catholics believe abortion is okay.    And that's just in the Catholic church, one of the more conservative branches of Christianity and one of the historically most repressive branches of Christianity.  If their followers are "allowed" to think for themselves and decide what is right, if not all of them can agree on what is right, then how in the hell does that mean that religion is "controlling" everyone?

It means that they are avoiding the ugly areas and trying to only keep what little in religion there is that is good. It means that there are shades of gray, and not everyone are hardcore religious nutcases. I know that there are more and less religious people. There are people that renounce parts of religion that doesn't make sense, because they want to think for themselves. The less religious can be pretty OK.

I agree that I've been focusing too much on the either-or, normal people vs hardcore religious people without acknowledging that there's a middle ground. Still, speaking just about the concept of religion, I can't see any doubt in that the more fundamentalistically religious people get, the worse they get.

Yes, religion is typically less flexible.

When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.

When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.

I know plenty of people from different branches of Christianity.  They all eat pork.

It's an example. I could've just as well said "walking under ladders". It's just generally against putting down rules and recommendations as religious commandments versus putting them as changeable laws. Actually, in with religious commandments, I'd also include the constitution of the USA. It's another of those scriptures that become immensely valuable just because they were written when they were written.

The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.

Wrong.  There are plenty of stories in the Bible that involve "questioning."  I don't recall any story that involves God smiting someone for asking a question though.  And again, you're talking about individual people promoting following instructions without questioning.  That isn't how most religious people act.  Nor do I hear most religious people using the "weight of God" to back up their opinions.  I don't know what sort of bizzaro world you live in, but I'm glad I'm not there.

Have you ever had Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on your door? If you haven't, you should be glad. They're around in the world I'm in.

About the questioning - I suppose you can ask questions, you just don't get any real answers. And if you want to hear the weight of god being tossed around, try getting into a discussion with someone who is deeply religious.

The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.

That's your opinion that it's "all just a lie."  In my opinion, that seems a little narrow minded.

It might seem a little narrow minded, but it's the conclusion I've come to after giving it consideration. There are many factors that have contributed to that conclusion.

Here's one to think about for logical christians: If there was one god that wanted you to believe in him, why would there be so many different religions - i.e. what would give rise to those extra religions that aren't true? The most logical answer is that there is something in humans that makes us susceptible to being lulled into believing in religions that aren't true. If there is something like that, you must also assume that you yourself suffer from it, and thus your religion most likely isn't true either.

[DOOM]

Charity is nice. There are plenty of charity organizations that aren't religious, so that's nothing specific to religion. When I said "ease unavoidable suffering", I was not speaking about physically supporting people. I'm speaking about easing suffering on purely religious grounds, based on faith.

No, charities aren't purely religious, but it is still a positive aspect of religion.

I highlighted the areas in what you quoted from me where I said that there is no one root cause.

Agreed.  But I think we should look at the people involved as the cause before we start looking at abstract ideas "forcing" them to do it.

It means that they are avoiding the ugly areas and trying to only keep what little in religion there is that is good. It means that there are shades of gray, and not everyone are hardcore religious nutcases. I know that there are more and less religious people. There are people that renounce parts of religion that doesn't make sense, because they want to think for themselves. The less religious can be pretty OK.

I agree that I've been focusing too much on the either-or, normal people vs hardcore religious people without acknowledging that there's a middle ground. Still, speaking just about the concept of religion, I can't see any doubt in that the more fundamentalistically religious people get, the worse they get. 

I think most people probably fit in that middle ground.  And I hate religious nutcases as much (if not more) than you do.  It gives the rest of us a bad name that simply isn't deserved.

Have you ever had Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on your door? If you haven't, you should be glad. They're around in the world I'm in. 

Oh I think they're nuts too.  The ones I've met (outside of knocking on my door) were pretty nice though.

About the questioning - I suppose you can ask questions, you just don't get any real answers. And if you want to hear the weight of god being tossed around, try getting into a discussion with someone who is deeply religious.

That sounds kind of like philosophy, which I wouldn't say is a bad thing.  I don't want to hear the "weight of God" tossed around any more than you do.  The thing that annoys me most is Creationists that just can't stand evolution.  It's ridiculous.  If God could create the whole damn universe, you're telling me he couldn't make a monkey turn into a human over time?  Yeah, right.

It might seem a little narrow minded, but it's the conclusion I've come to after giving it consideration. There are many factors that have contributed to that conclusion.

I respect that you can come to your own conclusions about religion, but evaluating every religious person as a whole instead of on an individual basis doesn't seem right to me.

Here's one to think about for logical christians: If there was one god that wanted you to believe in him, why would there be so many different religions - i.e. what would give rise to those extra religions that aren't true? The most logical answer is that there is something in humans that makes us susceptible to being lulled into believing in religions that aren't true. If there is something like that, you must also assume that you yourself suffer from it, and thus your religion most likely isn't true either.

Three of the worlds main religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are based off of the same thing though.  They've drifted apart over the years, but they're not "totally different."  As far as that goes, some people are trying to claim Atheism is a religion.  Maybe Atheists are being lulled into not believing in something that is true?