Religion Is Progressive and Necessary

1. You have a strange idea of what abuse and childhood are. I hate to say this brother, but children very often are not given decisions, precisely because they are children. Children must eat broccoli. They have to go to bed at bedtime. They have to go to school and learn things they don"t want to. They have to wear that hideous sweater that grandma knitted them. They have to do these things precisely because they are not mature enough to decide for themselves. none of these things qualifies as abuse. I would hope that you are not seriously claiming that an unwanted hair cut is so traumatic that a child will never recover? Need I mention actual abuse? And when the broccoli eating kids become adults, any of the things can be stopped. Finally, you continue to cherry pick data points. Female genital mutilation is a Pre-Islamic practice whose practice is restricted to certain tribes in Africa. Its ties to Islam through chastity a is, at best, tenuous. You ignore the culture and tribal aspects of the practice, but to somehow tar the entirety of religion with a cultural practice is not correct. Where is the acknowledgement that even within Islam the practice is often strongly condemned. http://news.yahoo.com... That stands in sharp contrast to famous atheist Richard Dawkins, who apparent support for "mild" (as if there is such a qualifier) pedophilia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I would imagine that you would be among the first to qualify that Dawkins does not speak for all atheists? Neither does female genital mutilation reflect the wider religious world, where there exists no where, in any religion, a commandment for this practice. Religious people think this is needless mutilation. How does religion cause this? 2. You once again tar the whole with a single data point. Its called the Spanish Inquisition precisely because it was in Spain, and not " France, Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Poland, Sweden should give one pause before tarring so many. The unique politics of Spain, involved in long war with Moors did not exist elsewhere. Religion here was merely an excuse. The Cultural Revolution? Is political abuse a religious thing alone? Indeed, you seem to ignoring that you atheism induces human biases. Science also has a stage called the hypothesis stage. At this point, barring a test for God, your atheism is no more the result of a testable, observable science process than any other hypothesis. Induction is what counts here, and the strongest most probable argument should carry the weight until, and unless, something stronger arises or there is a test that confirms or denies. There is risk that thinking atheism is science, rather than an opinion about God, can induce grave biases. Your next claim demonstrates this. The Biblical Canon process has never been called a science project. It is history. It was the compiling of the renditions that were MOST accurate for the life of Jesus Christ. How exactly should that evolve? Should Jesus in the next edition have been the first guy to stone the adulterous woman? Should he have a guitar like ZZ Top? Is there a need to update teachings about the adultery? Has it suddenly become a beneficial practice? It is precisely this secular confusion and fear of education about religion that has caused the secular community to get it wrong. Religion is primary ethics and wisdom; science is observation and testable conclusions. This view that religion has somehow poisoned the process is itself the poison to the process. 3. Religion Spread Intolerance. Do you hate George Patton? William T. Sherman? Napoleon? Harry Truman? Because each of these men have given brutal orders that resulted in thousands of often indiscriminate deaths. Yet these orders given, though controversial, by in large lead to the ending of terrible and greatly destructive wars. Yet Moses issues the same orders in similar context and its evil now? The Prophet Mohammed fought ONE war. It was a war he allowed himself to be beaten, humiliated, and exiled to avoid. His adversary dealt in treachery, bribery, and cruelty without even the pretense that diplomacy could reconcile them. The advice to fight such an adversary to the bitter end? To end the war quickly? It is the same guidance that Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin gave when fighting the Nazis. No one states that war is necessary, but only the non-religious pretend that giving sound battlefield advice, intended only for the battlefield, is wrong. Condemning sound and sage advice in war merely because it is religious, belies the pretense of the criticism. 4. Darwin published his beliefs despite criticism. Are you seriously claiming that only in the religious world do people criticize ideas they do not agree with? Many scientific theories, when first postulated, receive a great deal of criticism. The initial theory on black holes was opined as ridiculous. Is that because scientists are so intolerable? Again, how long has the atheist favorite been around? The Problem of Evil? Why does suffering happen with such a benevolent God? And how many times do you think that question has been asked and answered? Is it no longer being asked? Indeed, the very premise of take revolutionary claims and comporting them with questions is a leap to extremes yet again. Indeed, if questions alone lead to intolerance, you should note the festering war between Bart Erhman and Richard Carrier, which has erupted because the former chose to be true to his academic credentials and clarified that Jesus was real. Rejecting religion is not the cure to this human issue. 5. "Many religions have no concept of Hell." Buddhism, for example, has no concept of Hell. In Judaism, Shoal is very different from what has been viewed as Hell within Christianity, which itself comes from Dante"s Inferno. We now add God"s wrath to the list, while discussing not a single instance of what drove that? Today, our special operations forces routinely attack and terrorists, pirate bases, and the virtual destruction of say, enclaves of the Lord Resistance Army happens with nary a raised a hackle. So wrath against injustice if fine, unless God does it, and then it is wrong? Again, consequence for actions. In the days before governance, God brought consequence to right wrong, today, it"s a SEAL team. The Qur'an, if you are going to quote it as saying something, then you should quote it. Show me where it says, "Sam, believe or I will caste you into hell!!!" It says, as you quoted, that Pride would lead a man to hell " because it is an acknowledged consequence to poor decisions and choices. Is it wrong, for example, to tell a man thinking about becoming a drug dealer, that there is a very real risk he will wind up in jail? Yet that concern that the effects of the drugs on potential thousands will have spiritual, as well as temporal consequences, inducing consideration for the effects on others is the point at which it becomes wrong? The Bible, has exactly 15 mentions of hell: http://www.biblegateway.com... It is the same thing. Teaching people the concept of consequence is not evil. In either case, if you are honest and earnest man, you have nothing to fear. Your criticism is bit like saying the government is evil merely because it has prisons. If the prisons are full of murderers? 6. The Good of religion. I think you claim that religion does mostly bad is both emotional and wrong. You continue to cheery pick extreme examples and smear the whole rather than examine in context " and it is not a standard you would even allow disbelief to be judged by. Indeed, you examples continue to be taking minor things and making a mountain out of them. The idea that someone can be moved to charity, and yet not be able to speak of the thing that lead them to serve others rather than chase profits is " rather weak. Indeed, when people have shared their faith with me, it is not something viewed as compulsive. If your reasoning is strong, the very idea that listening to different opinion is dangerous reveals a great weakness. The Hegelian Dialectic requires a counter argument to function properly. Why should we ever be so ungracious when sitting with our host that we would not listen? If he chose to share with us something that was important to him, even if we disagreed, to treat it as anything other than a gift? Merely listening is not compulsive. Bringing in a Ranger Battalion and killing people until they submit? That would be. What is missed are the food kitchens, clothing drives, the grants and loans, the health networks, the hospice care, the emergency calls answered by clergy, the counseling, the fellowship, the work projects, the communities built, accountability, the forgiveness of sins and rehabilitation, etc. It occurs around you anonymously everyday " and being blind to it is not a particularly grand demonstration of perception and superior insight. Besides, atheists get mad when we brag about our charitable works. ;-) Finally the PoE has been around for millennia " so have the answers. http://www.quodlibet.net... Aquinas"s answer " written hundreds of years ago itself. Why indeed would we bring up ancient history and pretend that there is no answer? Academics as taught to me requires one to garner both sides of an issue, at a minimum, rigorous examination and an explainable basis for your conclusion. To not even have the pretense that Epicurus has been answered? Or that religious people would not know? Regression is where? My quote for you: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." - Albert Einstein