Welcome to the forum, Speck.

First off, my following critique is my opinion only.  I cannot speak for any others on the forum.

I don't think religion is to blame for ALL the negative things that happen in the world.  Shit happens, as the saying goes, and sometimes we can't do anything about it.  I'll agree with you that religion has nothing to do with animal attacks.  I know there are non-theist terrorist groups out there; though I will certainly continue to blame those who decided to blow up a few buildings in my pretty city.

Religion is still dangerous.  It still breeds negativity.  Religion is also about power and control.  Many Christians can't see this because they are the ones in control.  They are the marjority. 

I'm not going to get into the bible or anything like that as it is not my strong point.  I'll focus on what I know best.

You are entitled to you beliefs.  I think you have a right to have your belief.  I also think that I have a right not to share them.  The problem with religion is that is that it attempts to force it's beliefs on other people.  It also interferes with other people's rights.  Take abortion or stem cell research, for example.  Or even abstinence only education. That's dangerous because it misinforms people. 

The biggest problem I have with religion is that I do think it creates bigotry.  Atheists are absolutely despised.  Why?  Because we don't share your belief in god.  From a Christian standpoint, anyone who isn't Christian is inferior.  In Judaism, the Jews are the chosen people.  And we all know what happens to unbelievers in the Muslim religion. 

 Another form bigotry is that homosexuals are denied equal marriage rights because it is considered a sin in the bible.  Well, what if someone disagrees with your bible?  Why should they have to abide by your beliefs? 

As for the whole comfort thing, death is a scary thing.  I would find it rather silly to knowingly delude myself into believing something that isn't true merely because it offers comfort.

Atheism is not this cold state of mind, as so many people think.  We are not depressed individuals, nor are we maniacal murderers.  I am simply a very happy, satisfied person who lacks a faith in your god or any other god. 

Ok, I apologize if this doesn't make sense.  I was typing quick!

If you can't ignore the many good deeds done under the guise of religion you also can't ignore the many bad things done as well. The inquisition, the witch trials, the intelligent design movement, etc. Religion has hurt at least as much as it has helped.

Are you saying that if Nora Lam had been an atheist she would have given up, left her baby to starve, and simply allowed herself to die? I find that difficult to believe. Can you support such an argument?

So the belief that you're going to go to hell is more comforting than the belief that there is nothing after death?

Yes, because "exposing europe to all the good Asia had to offer" is necessarily a good thing. Aside from the serious euro-centric viewpoint, again the fact remains that all of these things could have (and most likely would have) in the absence of religion. Can you support the claim that religion was required for these events?

This quote seems to support the idea that it was the spirit of exploration and the curiosity that fueled the connection between the two continents, and not religion at all.

People have also done these things not in the name of God or Christianity. What's your point?

Religion is hardly as necessary as trees. Trees (extending this definiton to plants in general) are required for human survival. Religion is clearly not necessary, as evidenced by the large number of atheists who clearly survive, adn the growing number of societies with larger percentages of atheist populations, most of which are doing just fine.

If religion isn't necessary, your secondary claim is that is has some benefit, but I still fail to see how you support the claim that religion does anything that could not be accomplished without it.

Break down your arguments and clear out some of the clutter of examples, Speck, and I think you'll find that they don't hold up:

Argument 1: religion isn't responsible for all bad things; some bad things that happen do not result from religion. Therefore religion is a good thing 

Argument 2: religion has helped people; some good things have come from religion. Therefore religion is a good thing. 

I believe argument 1 is an example of denying the antecedent.  I'm sure that argument 2 is an error of composition.

Thank ya'. = )

Not all religion is about power and control, especially not christianity. In fact, it's about relinquishing control to a higher power, I believe that even many sects of Paganism desire the same thing. To become at peace with yourself, and the things around you, is the first and foremost desire of religous people. Many christians say to "let God take the wheel" - in short, just follow his teachings, and you'll be fine. A type of control, yes, but certainly not a negative one. Furthermore, religion can be dangerous in the minds of the wrong people...but in the minds of the right people, it can help as well, that's a personal matter more so than theological. Also, if religious followers like Christians, actually followed the bible as they should, there's virtually no negativity. The bible teaches love and even tolerance - but it also teaches truth telling...and since to these people, that is the truth, it's in kindness a christian preaches to someone...not in cruelty. (not all christians do this, some are misguided, but the true christian follows the bible...these follow their heart.) It's wanting someone to go to heaven, not wanting to yell at them and say they're going to hell. It's the difference in offering a cure for aids (from their point of view) and laughing at someone with the illness. = P

This isn't totally true. While Christians are called by God to witness to others, it says nothing about forceful conversion. Certainly, people who are misinformed and misunderstand can take it the wrong way...but in truth, Christians simply wish to tell everyone they can, the "good news" if they'll at least hear it. That is all we're called to do. Furthermore, we are also exercising our own right of freedom of the practice of religion and freedom of speech. I think Christians, as well as any other religion, is well within their bounds...truthfully...(and this is straying a little)...I'd be flattered to have someone witness to me, even if I didn't believe what they did, they obviously are trying to do what they honestly think, is helping me.

Abortion...on that matter. I do believe it's murder - not because of my religion, but because of my humanity. A child is scientifically considered "alive" upon conception, but this is politically overlooked, and even denied politically. The argument is, "Is the fact that the mother has the living person inside of them, reason enough to claim it as property and nothing more?" Furthermore, abortion, I believe, restricts the parents...or at least the father. He has no choice in the matter...I think at the very least, both parents should have to agree. Either way, my point is, that religous reasoning isn't the only thing keeping the debate over that.

I'm christian, and I'm totally for stem cell research. As long as abortion is legal and does exist, there might as well be benifits, and furthermore, it's no longer a true issue, since stem cells can be gained in other ways now, other than aborted fetuses.

I've never heard of abstinence-only education...but it is just as logical as saying use condoms. It's just another way to be a little safer...not 100%, but a little. I believe people should hear all aspects of "safe sex", and so far that's what I've seen them being taught.

I have several atheist friends, and I've even considered dating an atheist once. Most christians...true, bible following christians, despise atheism, not atheists(hate the sin not the sinner)... We also believe that we are all equal, the bible teaches equality...here's a verse supporting that statement. (This is strictly to point out christian view points)

Romans 12:3 - For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment...

This is simply a matter of democracy. To dispise this, is to dispise our rights. We have a right to change things according to our opinions - if more people in one state would be happier with gay marriage, they'll vote for it, and get it, if not, they won't, and it'll be banned.

Furthermore there are logical reasons to be agaisnt the whole, legal gay marriage thing. Firstly, you really would have to change what marriage is defined as...but in truth, my point of view is, because marriage is so deeply rooted with religion (the wedding ring is a pagan symbol of reincarnation, the whole wedding dress thing is to symbolize purity, and well...the priest...haha...which is of course not always needed), it should not be legal or illegal. Seperation of church and state should prevent the government from interfering with that on either side...then you can get married under God, without the government, and if you're gay...get married how you see fit. That's my take on it.

Agreed.

I don't think atheists are depressed. lol When I went through a time of unbelief, I didn't get upset exactly...well, not for long...it was more so...how things were...and nothing more than that. Atheism is a belief like anything else...to an extent...actually, I guess it's a non belief...but I see your point. ^_^

I hear ya'. lol

Agreed - save for the fueled by it...I mean, that's true to an extent, but terrorist's aren't always religious fanatics. The rest, I didn't try to say were stopped by religion. I was simply pointing out that even with the absense of religion, most bad things would still occur. It was a slightly unimportant attempt to stop religion from being villanized. In short -there are much worse things to worry about, and religion isn't neccissarily what's wrong with the world, or even truly a big problem.

So true. I'm not saying it hasn't hurt - but let's be honest, people will always find a reason to hurt one another, be it with or without religion. I was simply stating the good that religion has done to show it's importance and how it has impacted the world we live in today. Even the bad things religion has done (the over oppressive Catholic church) led to the founding of America, which may be very "euro-centric" if that's what you mean by that, but it is indeed a good thing from many people's perspective. Bad can lead to good, sometimes it only leads to more bad, I'm only saying that religion has impacted the world positively.

Herself to die...perhaps. Many times she'd given up but felt that God needed her for something. This is all from her autobiography of course. The baby thing...you're probably right. I'm sure no matter what, she'd defend her child 'till the end. ^_^

I believe it's a fair veiw point if that's what it is. Not everyone will always agree on what's good and bad however. I'm not saying it was the only way, but it was one way, and thus was of importance. We actually have no way of knowing if Europeans would've ever even bothered with them otherwise.

While also showing the spark of that spirit and curiosity, which had been the crusades...the purpose for going there in the first place.

Surely, but any reasoning can't be ignored. Whatever the reasoning, it must be taken as important to people getting help. Religion is one of those reasons, cutting a reason to help people away seems unwise, though this I suppose is merely opinion.

It's looking at it from the point of understanding, that many factors are included in the good and bad of the world. Religion is an important factor in much of the good that has occurred. It's spurred exploration and trade, and to say it hasn't would be incorrect. It's also important to note that we have no way of knowing what might've happened in its absense...could've turned out alright, maybe not...but that's the case with most things. (e.g. government)

I'm not debating it's truth, but it's importance. However, there is logic behind it. But there's other places for that debate I'm sure. (true, faith does play a role in most religions...but it also plays a role in atheism when you think about it. Faith is part of anything we cannot be 100% sure of.)

"Hambydammit" though I see where you may have GREATLY, misunderstood me...I feel your reply was much too juvenile to even bother responding. lol Thanks for your input though. = )

Hope I got all of your questions, if I missed one...it's probably because I've been writing this for a really long time now...haha Thanks for all your responses and for being mature about it all. I'll check in later.

God bless.

 See, this is a mature reply...for the most part. = )

Misunderstandings are probably coming from not reading the title of the topic. The importance of religion. Not if it's good or bad, but if it's actually made some sort of positive impact. Which it has.  And not just christianity but religion as a whole. From uniting people (since seperation can also be blamed for non belief as much as it can for believing), to inspiring exploration.

I wanted to point out that religion isn't -all bad-, and I understand you didn't say it was, no one did, I myself never claimed you did. It was to show that religion cannot be villanized to the extent that it has. It has done some good, we should notice that. The world wouldn't be better off without religion, we may even be less advanced or less expanded (the crusades) without it, and while those things might've happened eventually, it's impossible to tell how long it would've taken.

 Religion is important - is what I'm saying.

If you've never even heard of abstinence-only education, you are woefully unaware of current politics. It is an unfortunate truth that the current administration is pushing and "abstience-only" agenda which has been shown to be ineffective.

Thank god we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, where the rights of the minorities are protected from the majority. Under our system of government, the majority is not permitted to impose its collective will on the minority when that would result in unfair and unequal treatment, which is unforutnately what is occuring in this instance.

If there are logical reasons to be against gay marriage, you haven't presented any.

"First, you really would have to change what marriage is defined as" Ok. This has already been done. How often do you hear about marriage as a transfer of property? That's what it used to be. In a very real, legal sense a woman was owned by her husband.

People can already get married without god. Marriage provides a lot of benefits to the couples, inlcuding hospital visitiation rights and ease of adoption. These things are currently denied to gay couples. Do you have any actual reason to deny them all the rights conferred with marriage?

If people can be bad or good with or without religion, how is religion good? It's like saying that white people are good because they've done good things. Sure they've done some bad things too, but without white people, think of how different the world would be.

Different is not better or worse. If religion causes as many bad things as it does good, you simply cannot maintain the argument that it is good.

If there's no way to know if the Europeans would have explored without religion, how can you possibly claim that it was because of religion?

You're essentially saying "I don't know why X happened, so it must have been Y." That makes no sense at all.

The purpose of the crusades was what? To kill people or to promote trade? Maybe without religion they could have had the trade without the killing, since they would still have the spirit of exploration without the need to kill.

Reasoning that is faulty can be ignored, or at least dismissed.

Your claim was that religion causes donations and such. And yet, many people donate without religion. Do you think that most of those people you are talking about donated because they were religious, or because they wanted to help other people?

So you can demonstrate that people explored and traded because they wanted to please god, and not for conquest or profit? Again, the fact that we don't know exactly how things would have turned out if religion didn't exist does not support the argument that religion is good.

What good thing that occured could not have occured without religion? 

Historically speaking, religion has created important social constructs which atheism and secularism have failed to reproduce. Churchgoing is a prime example of this: it is perhaps the single most successful source that I have ever seen in terms of keeping individuals in contact with their communities. Members of religious groups feel connected to each other in a very special way, and as a result, congregations can easily become social support groups. So while (if I went to church) I might inform my congregation of my roommate's recent diagnosis with leukemia, I wouldn't feel compelled to tell any other groups with which I might be associated (say, the SEAC).

I've read some pretty violent things in the bible. While I admit that I'm certainly no scholar of the bible, I do have to say that there is violence, cruelty and negativity contained within it. To clarify, of course, not everything in the bible is negative.

Oh, and that whole 'true Christian' thing? That's called a No
Scotsman Fallacy. I'm afraid that's not an acceptable argument around here.

See, here's the thing. How do you know you're right? I find it a bit arrogant to go to other lands and try to sway people from their religion because you (not you personally) are convinced that you have the 'good' religion, the 'right' religion. Where is your proof that the Christian god is the right or true god?

I'm a big fan of free speech. Witness all you want. It doesn't mean that I have to hear it. Or that I can't exercise some of my own free speech in return.

Interesting take on it. Again, I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but I believe there is more to be gleaned from embryonic stem cells than others. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge will help clarify this.

Really? Are you from the states? It's a bit of an issue, since our president endorses it and federally funds it and it's totally ineffective. Here's a link for your perusal. Wiki has a page on it here. Well, there's oodles of info out there if you have some time to surf the web.

Well, that's nice that you don't hate us, but quite a few people do. Search these forums and you'll find plenty.

Nope. Banning marriage based on religious beliefs, no matter whether you're the marjority or not does not change the fact that you are taking rights away from human beings. Let's put it this way, replace the word 'gay' with 'interracial'. Doesn't sound very fair, does it?

Gay couples should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual. They should have the same legal protections, benefits, etc. as a heterosexual couple. Because of the stigma that religion placed on homosexuality, gay couples are not afforded these rights.

I have a surprise for you. The Catholic church used to marry same sex couples (specifically men). Marriage is an institution, if you will. It was about property, money, lineage and heirs. Only recently has marriage become what it is today.

Oh, and I thought Hamby's post was very nice!!

There is an equivocation fallacy hidden cleverly in here. You talk about the bad things that certain religions (namely the Abrahamic ones, I presume) and equating with all possible religions, leading you to the faulty conclusion that all religions are not worth keeping because of the bad things that stem from them. 

O_O

So being a part of the neighborhood watch, local basketball team, local music scene, and the plethora of area specific gatherings, groups, and social environments don't exist and only church gatherings do...?

If that's the case, then it doesn't actually address CrimsonEdge's original post:

If secular gatherings can have the same effect as church gatheirngs, then they are hardly something that can't be dont without religion.

I have read your reply and wish to add a few pointers. I apologize if this seems kind of haphazard in the response, I had exams today and have been up since 2:45 AM. So. My brain is a bit frazzled. Still, let me continue! I for one do not despise atheists. I am willing to answer, to the best of my ability, the questions that are raised by atheists, but I do not hate atheists. I do not snub my nose to atheists. Nor do I snub my nose to the Wiccan, to the Muslim, or to the Jew—I have had friends ranging from atheists to Wiccans, and I still have these friends. I understand their worldview, I do not share their worldview. In fact the chap who is training me in physics (which is a parallel study of mine as I go through seminary, I hope to one day be able to work the wonderful and beautiful mathematical equations I find in my books on astrophysics and particle physics) is an atheist and a fan of your website and worldview. Even more so, he is a homosexual. He and I agree on a lot of things politically speaking, though he is of the Left and I am of the Right. Still, people can find common ground! I do not judge others. I don’t hate others. Hatred is a waste of time and energy. God does not call me as a seminary student to hate others even if I firmly disagree with a stance that is being taken. It is not my job to judge others. However, if you have a question that you wish to ask of me, from what I have trained in theology, I would be more than happy to answer questions that might be asked. I wont wildly witness you or anyone, such as throwing Bible pamphlets at you! But I will answer questions to the best of my ability as long as there is civility between those who ask the questions and those who answer the questions. Stepping back, none of my friends who are in seminary or at the church I go to or Christian friends far and wide hate atheists, homosexuals, Wiccans, et cetera et cetera. You can have a civil attitude between people and disagree with one another’s worldviews. You have a right to decide what you believe or do not believe, that is simply put. I will say I disagree with your consideration, but I do believe in free will.

CrimsonEdge's point was a poor one to make. By the logic that religion is unoriginal, and therefore expendable, we could argue that cars are unoriginal. We can travel by horse (or on foot even) and not as heavily damage the environment. So ought cars be abolished? Of course not. They ought to be improved. The same thing applies to religion. 

Completely, absolutely, and immediately. However, I have yet to see any evidence that religion has been bested.

Asking for something specific to religion in such a context is a non-sequitor. 

It completely isn't. You don't understand the premise of the statement and disagree with it, regardless of whether or not you fail to see what is being said.

I'll spell it out for you very simply... again.

A statement was made. I asked for proof. Proof was given. Proof was refuted.

You claimed that church, something only a religion can bring, brings about the development of a community. I demonstrated how other things bring community. It's as simple as that.  I do not take this any further like you are suggesting, which would make it a non-sequiter. I am simply showing that you do not need religion to form community as you suggested. 

No. There is no equivocation fallacy in there. If you'd like it spelled out further, here's my logic, including all premises:

(Definitions)

D1. Faith is defined as belief in something despite evidence to the contrary or complete lack of evidence.

D2. Religion is defined as a belief system relying on faith.

D3. Non-theism is defined as a lack of adherence to or belief in a religion.

P1. Some religions advocate or command doing bad things.

P2. Some theists do the bad things religion advocates or commands.

P3. All people do some good things and some bad things without religion.

P4. Theists don't do more good things than non-theists.*

P5. Some theists do more bad things than they would do without religion.**

C1. Religion does not add to the overall good of the world, but does contribute to the overall bad.

* "Theists" refers to virtually all theists, allowing for statistical anomolies. In P5, "Some" refers to a significant, statistically relevant number, in contrast to the statistically insignificant number in P4. Furthermore, "more good" refers to a per-capita measure rather than a gross figure. Because of the high percentage of religious people and institutions in many societies, it is probable that in some societies, religious groups would account for the highest gross number of socially benefitial organizations. This implies no causal relationship. Many studies have concluded that per capita participation in socially beneficial organizations might be higher for non-theists.

** This can be concluded thusly:

Good(1) = beneficial to humanity by virtue of a supernatural and/or unknowable universal standard.

Good(2) = beneficial with regard to a natural standard and an individual, a group, or an existing thing.

Bad(1) = negative to humanity by virtue of a supernatural and/or unknowable universal standard.

Bad(2) = negative with regard to a natural standard and an individual, a group, or an existing thing.

P1. Some theists believe that everything their religion advocates is good(1).

P2. Some theists try to do everything their religion advocates.

P3. Some theists do things which are not good(2) in any meaningful way, believing that they are good(1).

P4. Virtually all theists from P3 would not have done the things which are not good(2) except for the religion.

P5. Some of the non-good(2) things are bad(2).

C1. Some theists do bad(2) things because of their religion, which they would not have done without it.

Furthermore:

Normal = capable of thinking rationally about accurate perceptions of reality.

P1. All normal people desire to do good(2).

P2. Multiple peer-reviewed studies show a correlation between secular societies and statistically significant numbers of positive cultural traits.

P3. Negative cultural traits (crime, bigotry, intolerance) are correlated with highly religious societies.

P4. No accepted studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between high levels of religiosity and statistically significant increases in positive cultural traits.*

C1. All available evidence suggests that there is no outstanding cultural benefit to religiosity in a society.

C2. Highly religious people must not, on balance, display a higher tendency towards culturally beneficial behavior.

* Some studies have demonstrated a correlation between certain segments of societies church attendance and socially beneficial activities, but in these segments of society, church related activities were the only one practically available. The correlation disappears when church and non-church avenues of social betterment become available, suggesting that there is no causal relationship between church attendance and social betterment activities.

You've been here long enough to see these debates often enough. Why would you trot out this dead horse?

First, this doesn't address my point, which was that society is literally defined as having mechanisms for community contact. Churches are a result of the nature of society, not the other way around.

Second, churches are not present in all religious societies, at least not in the context you were using it.

Third, nothing in my rebuttal demands that there ever have been a completely secular society.

You've read history, right? There has been a strong tendency between competing Christian denominations to ostracize people who are not in the "correct" denomination. Sorry for not being logically precise.

In many, if not most, eras of Christian history, there has been a strong tendency for denominations to socially ostracize, and sometimes even punish legally, those who the ruling denomination deemed as heretical (i.e. not belonging to the "correct" denomination.)

And yes, I was calling what you wrote "bollocks." It is.

I stand corrected. I do apologize for assuming your motives. I am doing my best to correct you.

Legacy of Hate: A Short History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Prejudice in America

Enduring Inequality: Religious Discrimination in Employment in Northern Ireland (Inequality and Injustice in Northern Ireland

People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.)

Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe's Reformed Churches, c. 1540-1620 (European History in Perspective)

Now, in the eating crow category, would you like to retract your statement about me being unwilling to teach? Before you answer, please notice my work HERE and then think about how many of my posts you've seen where I go point by point with theists, exposing logical fallacies. I resent being called lazy. You should know better.

So, your argument is that churches are memetically successful, therefore religion made them possible?

I don't think it would be easy to come up with a more fallacy laden argument. First, the conclusion is completely ad hoc. Second, it's a kind of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, because two things are concurrent, there must be a causal relation. No relation has been established. In yet more words, there's no evidence that without religion, a similarly successful meme wouldn't have prevailed. In fact, we can look at American history and see a clear correlation between declining religiosity and increasing secular "societies" and social groups. It appears that society pretty much always has a level of community contact based on the needs of the society, independent of the presence of churches.

We can also say that this argument is an irrelevant conclusion -- the conclusion cannot be derived from the premise, which doesn't even include religion -- instead only discussing churches.

The fallacy (as I perceive it) lies in the bolded parts. You take the traits of some religions in your premise, and apply them to all religions in your conclusion. Thus, your D2 is inconsistent. This, of course, is assuming that I'm reading the argument correctly.

History is not what is being placed on trial here. The present manifestation of religion is. So any and all references to what Christians, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians have done throughout history are irrelevent when we are concerned with what they are doing right now, and what they will be doing in the future (assuming that the latter is knowable).

I'll get on those, but would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to just how educating myself in history ir relevant to the discussion at hand?

I would gladly retract my accusation of laziness. To be quite honest, it was something of a ruse on my part; I only did it to ensure a reply. To say that you have always exceeded my expectations would be a disaster in understatement.

No, just that churches are memetically successful, and that we should pause to consider what ramifications might come about from so quickly casting aside an ingrained meme. (Actually, my argument would probably be the other way around: churches being memetically succesful made religion possible as a lasting social construct).

Churches are, I believe, what makes religion a very powerful social force. I think that if atheists had a church, it would be astoundingly successful. But atheists don't have a church (pseudo-religions and satires aside). What's more, they scoff at the idea. And the way I see it, if secularism won't take church, then it falls securely into the realm of religion.

Your perception is probably because you haven't understood the argument yet. I'll try one more time.

Religious people collectively express the tenets of their respective religions.

Religious people are objectively no better than non-religious people.

Religious people, because of adherence to non-factual beliefs and acceptance of irrational values, often commit bad acts that would not be logically justifiable without the religion. In fact, they do them because of their religious beliefs.

Therefore, we can say that religion contributes no unique good to the world while contributing unique bad.

On balance, adherence to religion is bad.

If adherence to a religion is bad, it can be said that the religion is bad.

If some religions are neutral and some are bad, on balance, all religion is bad.

*********

Here's another way of looking at it:

Religion, by definition is irrational. (Faith is irrational, and faith is necessary for a belief system to be called a religion. It would be called science or philosophy without the faith!)

Morality can be described rationally.

Moral guidelines can be derived rationally.

Moral guidelines derived from faith are necessarily less valid than those derived from reason, since in some cases, the premises will be asserted despite evidence to the contrary.

It follows that:

Some religious views of morality will be false.

Some religious views of morality will be true.

No religious values are objective, since faith removes objectivity.

Therefore, religious morality is removed from objectivity, and does not correlate to good(2) and bad(2).

If Religion and religious belief promote non-objective morality, it is probable (maybe inevitable) that religious believers will do some bad things that they believe to be good.

Therefore, Religion enables the religious to be less good than if they were simply rational.

You seem to believe that the church, on balance, has been a unifying social factor. A thorough study of history will prove that it has not.

All that butter earned another thorough reply.

Memes are not dependent on inherent value for their reproductive success, unlike genes. Many destructive memes are highly successful. I have paused more than sufficiently to examine the value impact of churches, and have demonstrated that the only differentiating factor they have is that they were religiously inspired. All the evidence suggests that without the religion, social bonding facilities would have developed. The conclusion, then, is that churches are the religious expression of an inherent and universal human behavior -- namely, establishing social bonds.

The implication is that without churches, humans would still bond, and would still form establishments to facilitate such bonding.

I think I've thoroughly and soundly refuted the idea that society would be worse off without churches as social bonding mechanisms.

It would have been nice if you'd phrased it this way before I spent two hours of my life refuting the opposite view.

Can we come to agreement on this? Churches are a manifestation of social bonding, which is universal to humanity.

It's important to clear up a slight problem with our terminology here. Churches are not memes. Churches are buildings. Religion is the meme. The meme's success was largely due to humanity's natural and universal tendency to form social bonds, and consequently, institutions to facilitate the forming of social bonds.

In other words, we've traveled six times around our big toe to get from our ears to our eyes. In all this, we've established that churches formed because people like other people, and religion is a meme.

Hardly a ringing pronouncement of the value of religion.

Before I even begin, I would like to apologize for taking so long to respond. I have been... indisposed, as it were, and did not consider myself fit for such a task. As to whether or not I am currently fit, only time will tell. 

Your argument stems from the assumption that religious people and non-religious people are precisely the same, barring the religious belief. You forget, it seems, that I hold that the majority of religious people are irreparably insane.

 My main beef with this particular argument lies in the bolded statement. The premise in itself is accurate, but I believe that it is inaccurately applied to the argument. How religious people compare to non-religious people isn't an issue here. How religious people compare to themselves without religion is. In order to prove that religion doesn't in fact lead to people performing good deeds, (in other words, to support your premise that religion doesn't in fact contribute any good to society), you would have to prove that the people who currently do good deeds for religious reasons would still do good deeds without those religious reasons. Suffice to say I consider this a very formiddable task.

The problem I see with this argument, is that while morality can be described rationally, it isn't always (see: religious moral systems). The argument is sound logically, but I don't see that it would practically follow. In order for it to work in reality, it would be required that without religion, a rational morality would necessarily follow. I do not believe that such would be the case. Religion isn't a direct synonym of irrational. One can be irrational without religion. You are essentially denying the antecedent here (If religion, then irrational; not religion, therefore not irrational.). "Correct me if I'm wrong" goes without saying.

I would say that it has been a unifying social factor on a communal level, and that beyond that it can lead to hostility on a more global level, but I could say the same thing about college football. 

Can you perhaps pause just a bit longer, and demonstrate these alternate social bonding facilities, and how they differ sufficiently from religious ones? 

I'm afraid I'm inclined to disagree. I would like to hear more on the subject.

Churches may not be memes, but churchgoing is. And religion helped facilitate its creation (ensuring its own longevity in the process).

The more I think about it, the more it seems to be a chicken and egg type of deal (I'm in the school that a chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg, and thus essentially "came first," but that's not really the point). I believe that both effect each other.

 ***EDIT:

 On a further note, I feel that I have a difficult time differentiating between the two. By what do we measure human nature, if not by what it creates? This causes me some confusion.