[umvi]

What I don't like is when people point to this as a reason why all religion is bad. These are con artists, plain and simple.

It would be like if someone on QVC conned tons of people into buying magnets because "science proves this will increase your energy levels" and then I used that as a reason to write off all of science.

Target vulnerable people, get them to pay you money, profit. So many dishonest people exploit this formula from televangelists to email spammers.

[Bakary]

The problem is that, as "edgy" as this statement might sound, it's genuinely hard to draw the line between the con and the real thing. This doesn't appear to be qualitatively different from the Church's system of indulgences, to name one example. Religious organizations have a clear incentive to generate money.

At least with science, you can point to actual inventions and innovations that have a measurable and noticeable impact. Religion can and does have a beneficial impact especially in poor regions, but it does so independently of whether its teachings have any particular truth to them.

If the world were reset somehow, you'd end up with a completely different set of religious beliefs that would nonetheless have a similar role as a social bonding agent, whereas you would have a decent chance of the same research being done again if the scientific method does end up being developed in the world.

[umvi]

> If the world were reset somehow, you'd end up with a completely different set of religious beliefs that would nonetheless have a similar role as a social bonding agent, whereas you would have a decent chance of the same research being done again if the scientific method does end up being developed in the world.

This statement is made from the assumption that God doesn't exist and that all religions are equally false. From my perspective, I would argue that if you reset the world, yes, purely man-made religions would disappear and be replaced by different (man-made) ones, but ultimately God's true religion would always re-emerge.

For example, in my completely biased opinion, religions like Scientology and Buddism would disappear on world reset to possibly be replaced with some roughly equivalent man-made belief systems under different names (or not). But Christianity (insert the "true" religion here) would persist on world reset (perhaps even under the same name), and the entire Abrahamic-family of religions would re-emerge under different names. They might not be known as "Judaism" or "Islam" or "Protestantism" but basically God would call Abraham-esque prophets to establish his religion, the religion would go off the rails, false prophets would emerge, people would try to restore the church to it's previous state, God would re-establish with new prophets, etc., and you would be left with hundreds of similar prophet-based religions all in the same family of religions, all worshiping the same God, all acknowledging a common set of scripture (which would have the same core religious beliefs as the pre-reset world did), all acknowledging a common set of (ancient) prophets, but with varying dogmatic differences due to aforementioned corruptions.

[NeedMoreTea]

What makes Buddhism clearly man made whilst christianity is not? They seem to share similar tenets based on old stories and teachings of some personalities (or prophets if you prefer). The success of Abrahamic religions stems from historic use of missionaries and enforced conversion which makes them unavoidably deeply entwined with history. History that's written by the battle winners...

If there is such a thing as a default religion that emerges some point after intelligence evolves next time around, I'd expect it to have a similar journey but in no way a similar destination. Start with something of a gaia / earth-centred spirits, and maybe on to polytheistic paganism. I doubt there would be another Thor, Isis or Eostre. One true religion is likely to come only after society has developed enough to encourage personalities that can proselytise, no? I'd be astonished if what then emerged was even remotely comparable to anything that went before though.

[umvi]

> What makes Buddhism clearly man made whilst christianity is not?

Well, it may just be my ignorance, but I thought Buddists didn't believe in God. I thought it was more a bunch of good philosophies that a man named Buddha came up with. Even the religion itself is named after a man (named Buddha).

[NeedMoreTea]

Well there's the plains of existence that one can be reincarnated to - the heavenly, human and hell (Not sure what they are properly called). Without the need for a creator god. From a 21st century perspective that's probably a feature not a bug, as that doesn't need hand waving around where god came from, geology, evolution and what not.

Personally I can't see much difference between that and the Christian heaven and hell, or even Valhalla and Freja's field in Asgard, with Midgard and Hel (sic) - albeit with far less battle to get there. Heck, even The Apocalypse compared to Ragnarok. Just as there are commonalities in the Abrahamic there are commonalities in the Indian religions like karma and reincarnation, and surprising commonalities across the lot. They all seem to speak of the same basic needs - perhaps a sign of an innate inclination for religion - and very similar concepts, like of going somewhere after. Maybe there's a basic truth underlying every one of them, but I incline to them all being man made.

Which is why I would tend to think restarting the level would give a very similar journey through common ideas but entirely different destinations. Interesting to imagine, but I'm not likely to find out. :)

> Even the religion itself is named after a man

Christianity is named after a man called Jesus Christ. Islam used to be called Muhammadism, after Muhammad, though I am not sure if that was a Western name or actually used by believers.

[chanon]

Buddha is not his name, his name is Siddhārtha Gautama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(title)

[lalaland1125]

How can you tell what "God's true religion" is? I'm sure you would get very different answers from a Buddhist or Scientologist.

[umvi]

> How can you tell what "God's true religion" is?

Are you asking my opinion? My opinion is that the only way to tell is to ask God directly, study it out in your mind, and follow your gut. If God exists, he should be the only one that can tell a person what His true religion is and will confirm his true religion in a way that you recognize.

I believe it is also possible to have reproducible spiritual experiences/impressions confirming your choice.

[mikeash]

The trouble is that many Buddhists and Scientologists and others would say exactly the same thing.

[umvi]

I actually doubt it in those two cases. Most religious people believe only because of tradition; they haven't confirmed it for themselves. Many religions convert people with fellowship (i.e. they are converted because they like the new friends they have made) or by using confidence tricks on vulnerable people to tell them what to believe. I doubt there are many that tell prospective converts to go out on their own and ask God and decide for themselves.

At any rate, I believe it worked for me and I believe anyone would come to the same conclusion given enough earnest searching.

[maxxxxx]

One thing that bothers me is that churches still get special status. When you look at the Catholic Church it’s pretty much guaranteed that any other organization would have been shut down a long time ago if it had shown the same behavior in light of child abuse. Churches should be treated like any other organization but I think there is still a lot of reluctance to do so.

[SkyBelow]

Are you sure others wouldn't be treated the same? Penn State wasn't shut down. Many countries which continue to allow such abuse aren't overthrown. Federal agencies that engage in child abuse are allowed to keep doing so as long as they eventually catch a few bad guys by doing so. Gymnastic program continues to run. Schools often get away without even a proverbial slap on the wrist.

[maxxxxx]

they were very bad and should have been prosecuted more aggressively no doubt. But they didn’t show a repeated behavior over decades of covering up abuse or transferring guilty employees to other cities or countries. The behavior of the church was on a different level.

[SkyBelow]

It definitely was on a larger scale, but it was also by a larger organization. Given the extent of the Penn State cover up compared to the number of individuals involved, and scale their sports program to the size of the Catholic Church, I'm not so certain the numbers are that far off.

Also, much of the abuse by the Catholic Church happens in third world countries. What few studies I've seen of child abuse rates in general in those countries paint an extreme grim picture compared to other countries. I say this with full knowledge that in the US we have rates of 1 in 5 for similar forms of abuse.

[maxxxxx]

“Also, much of the abuse by the Catholic Church happens in third world countries”

Germany and Ireland are not exactly third world countries to my knowledge.

[rayiner]

Right. We didn’t shut down the US Olympic team or the IOC did we?

[coldtea]

>One thing that bothers me is that churches still get special status. When you look at the Catholic Church it’s pretty much guaranteed that any other organization would have been shut down a long time ago if it had shown the same behavior in light of child abuse.

Well, all kinds of big companies exploit child labor in sweatshops, which also kinds as abuse in my book, and nobody closes them down.

[maxxxxx]

Are you saying that if you ran a secular child care facility and found out that employees abused children, you then transferred these employees to other facilities or internationally, you would not be in jail and your child care facility would not be closed ?

[coldtea]

A church is not a child care facility. It has priests and other people that get in touch with tons of people, including but not exclusive to children.

What they do or not do is not up to the church, is up to them. The catholic church didn't tell them to abuse someone. Did a local catholic church help people wanted by the law or convicts escape the law (and also extradition)?

Now, if the church took someone accused as a child abuser (that somehow the law neglected to convict) and moved them in another country in a church position they still work with children, then sure, we can condemn the church authorities.

In the eyes of the church, even flawed people that did abuse can be accepted and transferred to positions where they cannot do such harm (e.g. in a monastery). The church was created to welcome flawed people and to help them, not to ostracize and condemn them. It's role is not even to hand them to the law, if the law doesn't ask for them (which is also why something confessed during catholic confession, even a murder, is not supposed to be revealed).

(I'm not Catholic btw, just reasoning based on their principles).

[maxxxxx]

“Now, if the church took someone accused as a child abuser (that somehow the law neglected to convict) and moved them in another country in a church position they still work with children, then sure, we can condemn the church authorities.”

This is exactly what happened many times.

[kcmastrpc]

The vast majority of churches are net positives for their communities, this applies to _all_ churches. Are you saying the local Islamic centre, or protestant church should suffer because of the corruption in the Catholic organization?

[ones_and_zeros]

May be just a personal opinion but I don't consider paying taxes on vast amounts of wealth or the land you own in support of a community to be suffering.

[harimau777]

Would requirement to pay these taxes also apply to secular non-profits?

[maxxxxx]

No. What I am saying is that the Catholic Church should have been shut down or forced to clean up their act. And other churches who do bad stuff should be treated like secular organizations who do bad stuff. Right now if you call yourself a “church” you can get away with things other organizations can’t.

[coldtea]

>Right now if you call yourself a “church” you can get away with things other organizations can’t.

Says who? Do you mean priests accused abusing people wont be taken to court/jail because they are priests? Because that happens all the time (just like with any other profession doing that).

Whether the Church advertises it or not, or tries to keep it from publicity, is something most entities would do. Companies don't advertise their members bad behavior either.

[kcmastrpc]

Tell that to the branch davidians.

[maxxxxx]

What’s your point other than being defensive?

[kcmastrpc]

My point is that you're wrong. Calling yourself a church doesn't make you immune to state/federal laws. Tax laws included.

[NickBusey]

Citation needed.

[kcmastrpc]

https://www.barna.com/research/do-churches-contribute-to-the... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414933/ https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publh...

[NickBusey]

The first link is the results of a survey.

The second and third links make the argument that churches increase the health of the people who participate in it.

Neither says that churches are 'net positives' for a community. A church can easily make it's members healthier, while also hurting the larger community as a whole by occupying very valuable real estate while contributing nothing back to it's non-members.

[kcmastrpc]

Though I suspect I could throw hundreds of articles/research papers/studies at you and you'd still balk and say they're slanted, unrepresentative, etc.

[maxxxxx]

What for?

[fredley]

Atheists are not immune from scams, this is just a scam that targets Christians. It also happens to operate with the implicit approval of TV networks, and the law/state in general.

I don't think the article casts religion as a whole as bad at any point.

[humanrebar]

The rest of this thread on the other hand....

I think the commenter here was right to get out in front of the ire and proselytizing.

[AlexTWithBeard]

This is normal. Everything has its dark sides: religion, science and even software engineering.

My personal problem is the lack of convincing arguments that religion is good.

[nostalgk]

Spoken as a non-religious person, religion gives a lot of people something to rely on and a base foundation of ethics and morals from an early age. It also opens many people to reading and philosophy, and can create a great sense of community in healthy environments.

[arethuza]

When I was a wee boy here in Scotland our primary school teacher for our class of 12 was an ex WW2 Spitfire pilot - we read the bible every day. For some odd reason we only ever read the old testament and generally the bits where people are being rather beastly to one another.

I do believe that dear old Mr C might have been trying to teach us a lesson about the reality of religious beliefs.

[NB I grew up in a small quite religious community where things like cycling, playing football, hanging out clothes to dry (and probably humour) were effectively banned on Sundays].

[Fellshard]

If you read a book on the Third Reich, would you suppose it was being raised as a positive example?

In a similar way, a great deal of the Old Testament is presenting history, not condoning those beastly actions (and, indeed, often directly and straightforwardly condemning them). Context is vital.

[arethuza]

Well, that was rather my point - I suspect he was condemning them. Certainly he never usually mentioned anything to do with his service in WW2 or anything like that - he was a conspicuously decent guy.

[Fellshard]

Fair enough, and good to hear about. Others use that to condemn the book as barbaric as a whole, which misses the point. Couldn't tell which you were implying.

[oytis]

> It also opens many people to reading and philosophy

Anecdotally in my case (Orthodox Christian) it was a dive into classical philosophy that opened me to religion.

[nostalgk]

This as well. Often people who are looking for answers (or questions) find them.

[Tsubasachan]

This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.

Looking at my own country many people simply feel that they have no need for religion. Instead of going to church on Sunday why not watch Netflix in bed?

[0815test]

> This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.

This is quite wrong - the main beneficial function of religion is to provide an institutional framework for enhancing social capital and the overall "sense of community", which is a critical antidote (far more so than "welfare" or even private charity) against social exclusion and marginalization for the most vulnerable in society. The only states which try to take over this function altogether are totalitarian states - in fact, even in many authoritarian or otherwise dysfunctional and unfree states, religion - at least at a "grassroots" level - tends to function in practice as a haven for civil society. The only institutions that even compete would be labor unions (in some places), and for obvious reasons these are far less universal in their overall outlook.

[Tsubasachan]

Not at all, a government can easily subsidize any non profit organization. There are many community centers in my country run by volunteers and funded by local taxes for example.

I think my country has proven that if there is less necessity to turn to religious institutions a society can start the path to secularization.

[atentaten]

>It also opens many people to reading and philosophy...

I would argue that the more religious the less one is inclined to broader reading and philosophy because the practice is usually constrained to one's own religious ideologies.

[nostalgk]

For the average person, yes, but many people got their start on philosophy reading religious texts (see: Kierkegaard, Hegel, Tolstoy, and others)[1].

Going into the realm of personal experience, I made the choice to go to church as a child, and reading the bible expanded my horizons to lots of other religious texts and eventually philosophy and literature. My closest friends in this hobby and discipline started the same way as well.

I am not positing that it opens everyone to philosophy and new ideas (as it is deeply steeped in tradition), but that it opens those who may already be interested and gives them an "in".

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_philosophy

[pnongrata]

If what you are saying is true, then predominantly atheist countries (or societies) are mainly unethical and immoral (exaggeration). Children of atheist parents will grow to be rapists psychos (also exaggeration).

[irishcoffee]

Saying "A can provide X" doesn't mean "without A there cannot exist X"

[pnongrata]

That's maybe not what has been said here, but it's said pretty much in every discussion I've been. They argue that religion is necessary to "give" us a good moral compass, that without it we would be lost, etc.

[nostalgk]

Depends on what you consider religion, and morals, and I'd still argue it's not necessary. There are many philosophical sects that preach morality or reject the traditional compass that one can believe and internalize. Not all of these are traditionally recognized religions.

[nostalgk]

Exactly. There's lots of ways to go about it. Religion is just one.

[mopsi]

There is no need to treat religion and atheism as polar opposites. Atheism, at least in the west, has considerable overlap with Christian theology on topics like human rights. There is little rationality behind human rights, they can't be measured nor observed. Eg, who, when and how determined that humans have the right to life, but dolphins do not?

"Universal human rights" feels like a more modern wording for "God-given lifestyle". They are beneficial, but also as irrational as any religion before them, and rely on supernatural origin to make them them non-negotiable.

[dylan604]

Some religions actually discourage reading non-approved content especially things contradictory to their core beliefs. They will also tell you that you are not allowed to be aquantances with non-believers to the point of cutting off ties with your own family. Of course, some religions only teach that men can be allowed to read.

[root_axis]

> It also opens many people to reading and philosophy

This is definitely not typical of religion unless by "philosophy" you mean their faith's religious text.

[challenger22]

Religious people are happier than non-religious people. This replicates fairly well across many countries. This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own. It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism, as well, if you accept God as a metaphorical construct. Religious people are also more charitable. If you break down the numbers, this increased charity is not just benefitting the church.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p...

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Giv...

[AlexTWithBeard]

Religious people are happier than non-religious people.

Interestingly, when we start talking about countries, not individual people, the trend reverses: atheistic countries are the happiest.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018...

[challenger22]

>Of course correlations are not causation, and the negative correlation that I expect between religiosity and happiness does not mean that atheism makes people happier, or religion unhappier. What it means—and this is supported by several sociological studies (see here for one)—is likely that people either turn to religion or maintain their religion when their social situation is so dire that they’re unhappy. When conditions are good, and there’s lots of social support, including help for sick people, old people, free medical care, and so on, then there’s no need to be religious, no need to supplicate a god for what your society can’t provide. When you’re well off, your country gradually loses religion, the thesis of Norris and Inglehart in the preceding link.

>In short, what makes people happy is not religion, but material well being and the assurance of material aid. That’s supported by the study’s finding that immigrants, including Muslims from the Middle East, quickly gain the happiness of their new country, while (I suspect), still keeping their religion, though perhaps in an attenuated form.

This does not contradict my point- if you live in rural Appalachia, there's a good chance you have a pretty hardscrabble life. Religion is adaptive in this circumstance, and you can become happier by becoming religious. The author of the article you linked also goes on to quote Marx, saying that abolishing religion is curing the masses of their opium addiction, and curing them of their delusions. I would argue that irreligious people are just as delusional, but with different failure modes. Apathy, nihilism, and lack of a sense of self dominate the irreligious; moral absolutism dominates the religious.

[vekker]

Obviously there are many other factors for happiness. To say anything about the effect of religion on happiness, ideally you would compare people in the same region, in similar circumstances.

[arethuza]

Certainly as a Scot I would not naturally associate "religion" and "happiness"....

Edit: I'm talking about my experience of religion in Scotland, which is a bit grim and dour, not the rather cheerful kind that they seem to have in the US :-)

[Jedd]

> Religious people are happier than non-religious people.

Dumb people are happier than smart people -- pick your own causality.

> This replicates fairly well across many countries.

In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.

In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.

> This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own.

Of what, pray tell?

> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...

This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.

> Religious people are also more charitable.

I believe this has been debunked, but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.

[lostphilosopher]

> "Dumb people are happier than smart people"

That seems counter intuitive, and everything I'm seeing on an initial search says the opposite. Example: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19659985.

The aggregate conclusion I'm seeing is that smarts corresponds with a small bump in happiness.

[Jedd]

Yes. I did some subsequent research and couldn't find terribly much that I felt was conclusive. I could argue that it doesn't matter hugely, as the absence of conclusive evidence, and the question of which way causality lies, was the parallel I was drawing to the 'religious people are happier' claim.

[kcmastrpc]

> In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.

This is a half-truth, those same countries you'll be killed for expressing non-belief or belief in a different accepted religion. This is extremism and shouldn't be linked to what the vast majority of the rest of world practices.

[Jedd]

Absolutely. If we agree that everyone believes in either 0 or 1 religion, then we'd agree that everyone disbelieves in n or (n-1) religions, where n is several thousand (depending how you slice and dice the various sects and cults).

I'm not sure what the vast majority practice, though Pew [1] has done some good research on beliefs amongst the second most popular religion. Attitudes towards the execution of apostates is especially interesting reading.

In any case, if you live in almost any of the countries listed in that section you'll definitely be happier (and probably healthier / less likely to die) if you're religious than if you're not.

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-relig...

[challenger22]

Dumb people are not happier. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/significant-results/...). That would also do nothing to disprove anything I said if it were true.

Religious populations that murder irreligious people are bad, and not worth defending. That is likely a type of suffering caused by religion.

My argument is that participating in religious activity makes an individual person happier, on average, when looking at the data. That should be convincing, given the data I presented.

> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...

>This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.

I would have a tough time convincing you that it's true, especially considering that you don't appear to be trying to argue in good faith. But consider the Unitarians. They are mostly focused on personal virtue ethics through religiosity that rejects fundamentalism. I can say that looking at athiest strongholds, such as r/atheism, does not look like a more rational congregation than you might see at your local Unitarian church. The Unitarians are trying to better themselves; r/atheism is mostly focused on tearing down their oppressors.

The claim that religious people are more charitable has not been debunked in this thread, and I would be surprised to see that the evidence points that way in the literature. I've researched it a good bit. "But it's because they give to church" does not fully explain the difference.

>but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.

Altruism is not incompatible with self-interest. Additionally, most Christians are not fundamentalists. You can conceptualize Hell as the suffering that you are dealt as a result of your own failures. By giving to charity, you avoid one of these failures, and in doing so also make the world a measurably better place. (Meanwhile the statistically uncharitable atheists still think of themselves as superior, for some reason...)

[bildung]

> Dumb people are not happier.

We have to differentiate between unintelligent and uneducated. For the latter, there are several studies showing that lack of education can mean lack of imagination of alternative. For example in The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen described the phenomenon of rural uneducated Indian women reporting less content with their own health after they received basic health education: Suddenly they were aware that there actually was an alternative to many of their miseries.

[Jedd]

FWIW I am trying to interpret, and presenting my case, in good faith.

I don't accept the claim that religious activity makes everyone involved (at least on the believers' side) happier. In almost all cases there's no control to compare to - you have to compare different people, rather than the same person(s) with & without religion, and then you're back to the causality question.

The question of charity I've responded to in a sibling thread.

[lghh]

> it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.

I know I am picking on one small part of your argument, but I really hate this line of thinking. So what? Who cares why someone is charitable? I assume most people not doing it in "self-interest" feel good when they do it - does that invalidate the charity? Nobody does anything in a vacuum.

[Jedd]

I can appreciate the frustration.

I imagine some atheists may be frustrated to be told that they're not as nice (charitable) because of their rationality.

In any case, to your question 'who cares why someone is charitable?' I'd suggest that it's important if your definition of charity is something along the lines of a voluntary offer of assistance.

If you're coerced into providing assistance -- either by promises of eternal happiness, or threats of eternal suffering -- then it's not so much charity as taxation, or perhaps a promise of remuneration.

[AlexTWithBeard]

In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.

To be fair, Russia in 1920-1930s was pretty close to that. One surely may argue that communism is also a religion, so they were simply getting rid of the competition.

[holografix]

Yuval Noah Harari argues in “Sapiens” pretty convincingly that communism and capitalism are religions.

[dghf]

I think it's not so much that he argues they are religions, but that he uses a definition of religion that encompasses them: viz., the belief in an order that is not of human invention but that imposes human moral norms.

But that definition is possibly the only fully consistent and coherent one I've seen that covers everything commonly regarded as a religion; it just covers quite a bit extra, too.

[Shaddox]

>In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing secular states with religious ones.

>In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.

The communist block says hi. China salutes you as well.

[Jedd]

Yup, fair point. While weakening the points made by rational people is certainly not the worst thing they've done, the administration there is definitely making us all look bad.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Churches label themselves as charities, so by this reckoning donations that swell a property portfolio and a pastor's impressive lifestyle are considering "charitable". (Never mind that some churches lean heavily towards barely-disguised political activism.)

The amount of money spent on genuine good works is rather lower.

I'm sure genuinely giving people exist in religions, and they may even be encouraged by belonging to them.

But the standard rhetorical implication is that all religious people are like this and all non-profit spending falls into this category - when the reality is very different.

[pnongrata]

It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people. There isn't a single "good" that church does to other people that couldn't be done by secular means.

[challenger22]

On average, religious people are more charitable than non-religious people, even when you discount the money they give to the church. This is a good outcome and is evidence that religion is good.

[dylan604]

Seeing as how most religions require a minimum 10% tithe, their followers would of course seem to be charitable. But is it really charity if it is a requirement? I’d call it a tax.

[umvi]

> It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people.

Right, and you don't need a running club to motivate you to run or a school to help you learn. But for a lot of people, they sure do help if being charitable/running/learning is your goal.

[ykevinator]

Drunk people are happier than sober people

[_urga]

Drunk people (as opposed to those who enjoy a glass now and then) may be happier, or sadder, but only for the moment. But then I'm sure you knew that already!

  Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
  Who has strife? Who has complaining?
  Who has wounds without cause?
  Who has redness of eyes?
  Those who tarry long over wine;
  those who go to try mixed wine.
  Do not look at wine when it is red,
  when it sparkles in the cup
  and goes down smoothly.
  In the end it bites like a serpent
  and stings like an adder.
  Your eyes will see strange things,
  and your heart utter perverse things.
  You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,
  like one who lies on the top of a mast.
  “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt;
  they beat me, but I did not feel it.
  When shall I awake?
  I must have another drink.”

[galangalalgol]

In "virus of the mind" one of Dawkins' students argues religion is more like a symbiote with both benefits and burdens on the host. His arguments seemed reasonable when I read it but I have forgotten them.

[francisofascii]

Religion offers an alternative to a life based on self interest. To love others, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, give to the poor, care for prisoners, the elderly, the addicts, etc.

[_urga]

I think your point is genuine, but would it be fair to rephrase your personal problem as the lack of convincing arguments... as far as you are aware?

Also, just to point out something you take for granted:

You use the word "good" in your argument.

What is your standard of "good"ness?

Is it an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil?

Or is it whatever the loudest voice in the room demands it to be?

[username90]

Religion is not philosophy. We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god or something supernatural. For humans, everyone agrees that society is nicer to live in when people are nice to each other. So teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here.

Note that there are Christian and Buddhist philosophy etc which is useful. However, that is philosophy and not religion. You can believe in the golden rule without being christian. You can agree with the teachings of Jesus without believing that he is the son of God. You can read the Bible without thinking that it is anything more than ancient pop-culture. Also, you can believe that some things are "good" without believing in a god.

So as far as we know Religion is no better than snake oil. The main purpose of snake oil is to redistribute resources from naive people to conmen. Snake oil might have some positive placebo benefits, and maybe snake oil inspired some people to pursue medicine and help people for real, but snake oil is still just snake oil.

[_urga]

"We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god"

Sure, but how would that be an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil? You claim philosophy, and yet this is an age-old philosophical problem. For example, see Hume's guillotine, i.e. Hume's is-ought distinction.

"teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here."

Is truth determined by fact and reason, or merely by the purpose it serves?

[hawkesnest]

Religion is "bad" in the eyes of many for completely legitimate reasons, not just because of the opportunity for fraud.

[kcmastrpc]

Not legitimate at all, they're just as dogmatic and disillusioned as those they purport to despise.

[hawkesnest]

Despise? Maybe some, but probably as many religious folks who despise nonbelievers.

What are nonbelievers dogmatic and disillusioned about, exactly?

[nvarsj]

All religion isn’t bad. But it’s the perfect vehicle for con artists. The government even encourages it by making religious based cons tax free.

[mikeash]

The difference is that science trains people to be skeptical and challenge all claims, whereas religion leaves people ripe for being taken advantage of by training people to believe weird and unverifiable claims from people with the right title.

[Ensorceled]

You see similar, but less egregious, behaviour in other religious contexts. In the small, poorish town where I grew up there were 10 churches for a town of 1300 people. The town of 400 that was ten miles down the road had 3 churches.

This was a huge, one might say parasitic, drain on a town made up of farmers, railway workers, assorted stores, failing restaurants, etc.

As attendance fell, the churches started demanding more and more money from their congregations to make up the shortfall. My former church, a Catholic Church, is one of the worst. There are still 7 churches operating in that town.

[euroclydon]

Churches have a legacy of being the focal point in a community. It's no more surprising that a small town would have that many churches than it is that they would have bars or community centers.

Society is changing. Small towns are getting smaller as kids move away. Also, church attendance is down as people go to Starbucks instead. It will balance out over time.

[Ensorceled]

That's not how small towns work. When I was a kid there was 1 bar, 2 restaurants, 4 community centers (arena, legion, golden age home, library), 2 schools and 10 churches.

The largest building the town was the middle school. The next 3 by size were churches.

[jacobush]

Maybe you could argue that they provided a better service to the community when they had better representation. Now they are in a recession and people flight to put it in economic terms.

[hoseja]

Religious upbringing installs backdoors that these scammers exploit.

[nathan_long]

Exactly. Evangelical Christians have also denounced this kind of con many times.

Eg via a documentary: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/american-gospel-b...

A sermon clip with more than a million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s

A rap which drew a lot of attention when published: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4WevY-GPU

An explainer article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-k...

A church journal issue dedicated to the subject: https://www.9marks.org/journal/prosperity-gospel/

An article by the nephew of one of these con artists, explaining why he left the racket: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/october/benny-hinn...

And the list goes on and on. There are many ongoing efforts to combat this kind of false teaching.

Jesus' own teaching and that of his first followers were quite clear on the point that greed is sinful and dangerous, and that love and generosity to the needy, not wealth and success, should characterize Christians.

[Luk 12:15, 33-34 ESV] 15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." ... 33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[1Ti 6:9-10 ESV] But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

[Eph 4:28 ESV] 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

[Phl 2:3-4 ESV] 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

[Jas 1:27 ESV] 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[1Jo 3:16-18 ESV] 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

Prosperity teaching sells a parody of Christianity. It preys on those whose faith and knowledge of scripture is too shallow to tell the difference.

[gagege]

Whoa, never thought I'd even see a Shai Linne song linked on HN. Nice.

[gameswithgo]

You don't need to appeal to anything like this to see why religion is bad. Its just straight up crazy. I spend decades of my life trying to have deep arguments about this with people on the internet and elsewhere before it occurred to me that its so obviously crazy that trying to have deep discussions about it are a waste of time. Imagine trying to convince someone that Thor isn't real. That is how crazy it is no matter what religion you are talking about.

[Zigurd]

Don't excuse "established religion" so quickly. With the accumulation of prestige and power comes even greater crimes: https://buffalonews.com/2019/05/19/why-buffalos-child-molest...

[umvi]

Oh, I know. I am religious, but I do not agree with all religions. I think some are better than others and even think some religious organizations are evil (like Scientology).

But, I feel religion has given me enormous benefits in life - it's helped me focus less on myself, it's given me a profound sense of identity and purpose in life. I don't feel that it has hindered my career or love of learning/science/engineering at all. I think it could help a lot of people who struggle with lack of sense of purpose/identity/community, etc. So I don't like it when all religion is condemned because of bad actors in some religions.

To use an imperfect analogy, I don't like it when people use logic like this: "All projects on GitHub are bad. Look at all these poorly written packages: X, Y, Z. Look at all these bigoted project maintainers. Did you know X project was a front for human trafficking? There is no reason for me to explore and contribute to projects on GitHub when there are so many compelling reasons to the contrary."

[socks]

Having grown up religious, I used to think this way.

In my family, I now see people coming up against real hardship, and because their purpose in life is so deeply rooted in religion, they don't know how to cope with things emotionally (instead, trying to defer the emotional toll of those things, believing that their god will handle it)... and they make strange decisions, things go horribly, they are left struggling to comprehend. They live as if they are on a rollercoaster of hope, anticipation, crisis, disappointment, recovery, hope.

In my own experience, having your self worth and sense of identity attached to religion is a fragile existence, especially if you are logically inclined.

[umvi]

> In my own experience, having your self worth and sense of identity attached to religion is a fragile existence, especially if you are logically inclined.

I admit, this can be a problem. But it doesn't have to be that way. You can be logically inclined and attach at least part of your identity to religion. Having part my identity attached to religion gives me a sense of purpose. I know that life isn't meaningless and that God expects me to do certain things if I want to maximum happiness for myself and the people I love.

On the other side of the coin, I have a lot of atheist friends who struggle with nihilism which has often led to other equally strange decisions, despite them being "logically inclined" (like dabbling in drugs) to try to cope with their sense of purposelessness. I had one friend (brilliant programmer) who basically fried his brain using LSD trying to find purpose in life. He is a completely different person than he was before, and not in a good way. Some friends have even had prolonged periods of depression because of it.

[username90]

I haven't seen that, but maybe it is because religion is almost dead where I grew up so mostly strange outcasts were religious.

[tasuki]

It appears to me you believe in belief. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief

[Jedd]

Totally agree - it's a poor explanation to explain why religion is bad, especially as there's so many other, better explanations.

[StreamBright]

Well you can think about it as a simple market. There is a demand for salvation and there is a supply provided by the con artists. The price is set based on market dynamics. This is why a particular religion hates psychologists, they do not like competition.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

> What I don't like is when people point to this as a reason why all religion is bad.

Agreed - it's a pretty weak argument compared to some of the others (terrorism, pedophilia, genocide etc.)