@VictoriaNotes
And whether he realized it or not (apparently he didn’t) he also was not addressing religious people. He was addressing fundamentalists. The religions I’m aware of teach humility rather than telling people they should be arrogant.

@VictoriaNotes
I'm not saying only fundamentalists are capable of arrogance - all humans are. I'm saying religion isn't the culprit - arrogance is. And I'm not aware of any religion that teaches people to be arrogant. If anything they advise against it. It is the practitioners, that bring arrogance to religion, just as they bring arrogance to politics, business, and every other human endeavor. I would say that there are just as many people who misunderstand science as misunderstand religion, but that doesn't motivate you or me to say science is bad and should be done away with. We just say more education is needed. He may not have been addressing atheists, but he well could have been. There is no position on the theism/nontheism spectrum that automatically innoculates us from arrogance.

@VictoriaNotes
We always have a choice in how we interpret things. We can see others as malevolent or simply as mistaken. I like to see if I can find a way to find those I disagree with to be guilty of honest error, if I can possibly find a way. I tend to think that even the worst malevolence is, at its core, just another, usually understandable, error, if we take the time to learn all the contributing factors.

Correct me if I'm wrong (history is not my strong suit) but I'm guessing that at the time Christianity was in its formative stages, it was not common to think in terms of comparative religions. It was most likely a local mindset that prevailed. So I doubt the claim that Jesus was the only way was, at that time, intended as a comparison to other religions or to atheism. Same with all other religions.

Religions are mythologies, and mythologies are never correctly understood as explanations of material reality, but as emergent properties of human psychology. In this context, Jesus, for example, does not represent a literal man, who went around teaching people what to believe, but a personification of a way of living a life of compassion that produced a better result than just expressing our most base instincts.

In that sense, it would not be wrong to say that that is the only way to escape the "hell" of living in ego identity, whether you practice it as a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an Atheist. Do you see what I'm saying? There are ways of interpreting most religious doctrine that are innocent of the malevolence and error that naturally accrue to anything large groups of people get wrapped up in.

Whether we might come up with a system that is less prone to misinterpretation is a separate, and very important, question, but I think we are still very much in need of a system of guidance that helps people resist the worst of our animal instincts, and encourages us to practice self-discipline and tolerance.

Humans can poison anything, even atheism. It is the poison that needs to be cautioned against, not the practice of self-restraint, whether that practice is traditional or generic.

@VictoriaNotes
Yes, the literal stance is what I'm calling fundamentalism, and I do see that as destructive and intolerable. I just don't see it as a proper representation of "religion." It's a foul corruption of religion.

Empathy is built in from the factory, but so is our capacity for xenophobia, greed, and our response to the super-normal stimuli we have surrounded ourselves with in modern times. We don't have to call it religion if that is unpopular, but we will always need a cultural counterbalance to evolutionary mismatch. The lack of it is what is driving our species directly to extinction as we speak.

Nice to see you again BTW. Seems like you were mostly MIA for a while.

@VictoriaNotes
Well I'm glad to see you participating more. I missed arguing wth you!

Thanks for the links. I can say a few things about that.

1. I didn't see anything about any of those studies that established a causal relationship, only correlation. For all we know, those families might be worse still without religion.
2. I'm not defending religion as it is currently practiced by a majority. My point is that it needs massive reform.
3. The worst failing of science, in my opinion, is that it all too often only pays attention to numbers ( n ). That doesn't address individual potential, or even group potential, for that matter. It only shows what's happening right now, and which group outnumbers which other group.
4. My definition of religion is different from any I've heard from any source, which means everything I say about religion is probably not saying what it sounds like it is saying.
5. There are lots of studies like these being done, and they come up with many conflicting conclusions, depending on the particular way questions were asked, etc. It's a long way from settled science. There were even some conflicting positions within those you listed.
6. From the first study: “...within Christianity, fundamentalists tend to be more punitive and advocate for harsher corrections than non-fundamentalists.” (My point is that fundamentalism is what’s bad, not religion)

@Matias
Yes!

@VictoriaNotes
I don't recall ever hearing anyone exclude fundamentalism as a religion. That's a new one on me. Seems to me fundamentalism is about the only thing people regard as religion these days (if this site is any indication). I'll give credit to the horsemen for that.

My definition of fundamentalism is likely not the mainstream one. I use the word fundamentalism interchangeably with the word literalism. To me, it's just anybody who believes in a literal god-person. I'm guessing there are plenty of churches that don't consider themselves to be fundamentalist, but who still take God to be a literal person who created the universe, etc. I call them fundamentalists too.

One thing that this site has helped me see though, is just how much deep and lasting damage has been done by errant religions of all descriptions. I totally understand the need to get as far away from that as possible, and I support that movement 100%. Bad religion is bad.

@Matias That is my conclusion and I think also many others. We recently had a professor from Washington State University come and give us a talk on civility and ethics. He was a former Mormon and I got the feeling he would agree it is a social disease. When I lived in Germany I didn't sense the degree of evangelicalism that I see in this country and at this time. I think those in the group surviving the bible belt would agree it is a serious problem.

The problem is that we tout understanding as a noble thing but they won't have it. To them, their beliefs are paramount and it is their duty to convince us of their god(s).

@JackPedigo Understanding is not for “them”, it is for “us”. It is possible to understand and not confront or attack. Trying to fit religion into one’s understanding is a valid undertaking—maintaining anger or scorn accomplishes nothing. I can see where anger or scorn might be legitimate and unavoidable, but to maintain such emotions over a long period of time brings only unhappiness.

IMO, no one perspective is 100% the correct one anyway. There are logical and reasonable ways of looking at the God question.

@WilliamFleming I agree but I also understand that understanding is not always condoning. From the recent rule on civility from admin and a set of talks from a visiting professor from Wash. State Univ. about ethics and civility only made the need to be civil more important. However, groups as FFRF, the Humanists, ACLU and many, many others us civility in another way. Law suites and reminders of our secular government. They are winning. You can attack and still be civil. Our future and that of our progeny depend on it.

The first time I found a gun magazine at our free periodical shelf in the library I took it home to try and "understand" their perspective. I found it was beyond understanding. It is simply about power, money and control. Yes, civility in dealing with some but sometimes one can never understand.

@WilliamFleming It's not so much people who have guns but those that think their unrestricted use of guns is more important than people's lives. I owned a 22 at one time and was amazed the thickness of wood it could go through. I got the 22 from a 'friend' who traded it with me for a low serial number M-1 I had acquired (I don't remember where I got that rifle). I got rid of the 22 and haven't owned a gun since. Even in the army I only fired on the firing range but was in a branch that didn't use weapons. I admit, I look at the magazine with a very critical eye. One thing I saw was rampant paternalism.

When seat belt laws first came out many rebelled. My grandfather refused to use them and constantly said seat belts were actually dangerous in that they prevented one from being thrown free from an accident. What a load of horse crap. Maybe if some uncaring gun people had to help clean up after a mass shooting they might change their tune.

And I would add, dangerous for all humankind (and many non-human life forms).