In the same way that you cannot say all people of a certain race are bad, so you cannot say that all religion is bad.

Ha! So now someone who questions religion is a racist?

I saw a quote recently: "I don't know if faith can move mountains but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." Another is: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things.
But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."

Now, to get back to your original comment. Nowhere do I make the claim that religious believers are "bad people". And where did you come up with the notion that I can't say that religion is bad? As far as I'm aware we are not yet living in a theocracy s...

In the same way that you cannot say all people of a certain race are bad, so you cannot say that all religion is bad.

Ha! So now someone who questions religion is a racist?

I saw a quote recently: "I don't know if faith can move mountains but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." Another is: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things.
But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."

Now, to get back to your original comment. Nowhere do I make the claim that religious believers are "bad people". And where did you come up with the notion that I can't say that religion is bad? As far as I'm aware we are not yet living in a theocracy so aren't subject to laws against heresy.

As far as Naziism is concerned, let us not forget that one of the major premises of the extermination of millions was based on religion. The troubles in the middle east are rooted in religion. Northern Irelands recent unrest is based on sectarian divisions. Let's not even go into the Catholic church's coverup of the pedophile scandal.

Religion, as an impediment to rational thought holds no equal. The recent attempts to impose creationism into our public school system is religous based. Same with ID.

So, why is it not right to say religion is bad?

"When Richard Dawkins described religion as a form of child abuse he was roundly criticized."
apparently you are defending his view. In essence you are saying that religion is child abuse- doesn't that mean you think religious people are bad?
"But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."
No- apparently Hitler could make people do it without religion. My point- it is the individual not the religion at fault- just as one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch of say, Latinos, one or several idiots doing bad things in the name of religion in no way proves that ll religion is bad.

Please point to the orphanages, hospitals and the like that were started by atheists.
That is an...

"When Richard Dawkins described religion as a form of child abuse he was roundly criticized."
apparently you are defending his view. In essence you are saying that religion is child abuse- doesn't that mean you think religious people are bad?
"But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."
No- apparently Hitler could make people do it without religion. My point- it is the individual not the religion at fault- just as one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch of say, Latinos, one or several idiots doing bad things in the name of religion in no way proves that ll religion is bad.

Please point to the orphanages, hospitals and the like that were started by atheists.
That is an effect of religion on children too. I'd say it was positive for the most part.
And you must be basing your recognition of the wrongness of the situation in the article on something.
This means you have a moral code through which you interpret your observations.
If there is no God or order to the universe and everything happened without direction from any divine being, who is to say that what is happening here is wrong?
It's written on your heart. That's because someone made the universe and it's rules.
You can say anything you want- that doesn't mean it is true.

"When Richard Dawkins described religion as a form of child abuse he was roundly criticized."
apparently
you are defending his view. In essence you are saying that religion is
child abuse- doesn't that mean you think religious people are bad?

Depends on what you mean by bad. Do they do their children a disservice by forcing religious beliefs on them? Yes. Dawkins states that we don't label children "republican children" because their parents are republicans (or democratic). But we think nothing odd of labeling children of Christian parents as Christian children as though religion was not a choice.

No- apparently Hitler could make people do it without religion.[/quote...

read more»

"When Richard Dawkins described religion as a form of child abuse he was roundly criticized."
apparently
you are defending his view. In essence you are saying that religion is
child abuse- doesn't that mean you think religious people are bad?

Depends on what you mean by bad. Do they do their children a disservice by forcing religious beliefs on them? Yes. Dawkins states that we don't label children "republican children" because their parents are republicans (or democratic). But we think nothing odd of labeling children of Christian parents as Christian children as though religion was not a choice.

No- apparently Hitler could make people do it without religion.

Still sticking to the Hitler was an atheist idea, hug? OK, let's run with that since you seem to find such comfort in it. I can only guess that Hitler also didn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Using your logic his Flying Spaghetti Monster atheism was what caused him to murder 6 milion people? I wonder if he didn't collect stamps? Was his a-philatalist inclination the cause of his murderous inclinations? And let's not forget, all Nazi's belt buckles were inscribed with the phrase "Gott mit uns" (God with us). Doesn't sound very atheistic to me.

Please point to the orphanages, hospitals and the like that were started by atheists.
That is an effect of religion on children too. I'd say it was positive for the most part.

Good point. Religions have had a part in certain charities and the like. Hospitals are founded on science, not religion. Let's not even go into the Christian Scientists refusal to provide medical treatment for curable ailments, preferring to pray to their god instead. And specific non-religious charities and organizations are numerous. Doctors Without Borders, the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society, UNICEF, WHO, Mercy Corps. I could go on but I think you get my point.

My point above being that giving to a charity has nothing to do with believing in a god or gods.

It's written on your heart. That's because someone made the universe and it's rules.
You can say anything you want- that doesn't mean it is true.

Oh really? The implication is a strawman. That without a belief in god or gods someone is amoral or at least his morals and ethics are up for debate. How does believing in superstitions make someone a moral being. What possible difference could it make? I don't think that you would want to enter into a debate about the relative merits of morals taken out of the bible and those not based on religious dogma from 2000 years ago. And what I ...

My point above being that giving to a charity has nothing to do with believing in a god or gods.

It's written on your heart. That's because someone made the universe and it's rules.
You can say anything you want- that doesn't mean it is true.

Oh really? The implication is a strawman. That without a belief in god or gods someone is amoral or at least his morals and ethics are up for debate. How does believing in superstitions make someone a moral being. What possible difference could it make? I don't think that you would want to enter into a debate about the relative merits of morals taken out of the bible and those not based on religious dogma from 2000 years ago. And what I say I'm willing to defend with facts and not faith.