So, you quote this, but I assume you agree.

Well, I don't. Writers like this always want to go back to the 20th century style of atheism -- polite, respectful, nice and tolerant, no matter how horrible religions are. That worked really well, didn't it. Growth of fanatical Abrahamic religious groups, the evangelical movement, the global insidious sins of churches, only exposed when people stood up to them and demanded accountability.

You can keep your nice polite atheism. The New Atheists, so called, have made a huge impact on this debate. If that ruffles some feathers, then good.

The solution to bad cancer is good cancer not no cancer.

Good religion is only good insofar as it isn't really religious.

Bad science is bad insofar as it isn't really science.

That's the difference.

Hmmmm...... nah don't buy it.

Atheist religious apologists, wtf.

Women, I've found your solution. The answer to bad domestic violence is just good domestic violence, bad murderers need to be met with good murderers, good guys with guns need to stop bad guys with guns.

Black and white thinking. It doesn't stand up to complex issues.

That's just silly. The solution to a bad lie isn't a good lie.

Totally agree. Never understood why so called atheists want to get involved with religion and even worse become evangelical about their atheism. Makes no sense to me but then not much does!

Amen, Brother!

I can literally read passages directly from the Bible to people that claim Christianity, and they will say that I'm lying, they will say I'm not allowed to use their own book to disprove them because I don't believe, somehow when I read the words they aren't true anymore but when they pick whatever bit, no matter the context, its the law because it's what they want to hear to justify the ridiculous. The fact that we acknowledge that we are an imperfect species, that we mostly choose to do good, statistically speaking, without a being in the sky watching, without the carrot of a heaven hanging in front of us is proof enough for me that I'm am not as much a heathen as those who claim they need religion as a reason to act properly. Religion maybe a necessity for many people, people who would otherwise not find reason and beauty in simply existing. Its not always easy to see it, sometimes you lose sight of it. But we atheists don't need your fiction to validate us. We don't prescribe to doing whats right in hopes of reward or lack of punishment we do right because it's right. Because others feel it, and that's real. Your reasons are not, your reasons are invented to control, to shame, to subjugate, and to narrow the mind into a weapon of division. What kind of things would you do without religion? Would you commit crimes? Or would you enjoy life and continue to consider those around you that they may consider you?

I hate to tell you this but it is more likely the religious who quote out of context.... Atheists tend to be far more knowledgeable about religion than the religious are this has been proven in numerous studies. If people don't want their beliefs to be ridiculed they shouldn't keep spewing their stupid beliefs. When a moron tells me I should believe the earth is flat or was "created by a magical man wearing rotting goatskins 6,000 years ago that person is going to be ridiculed and deservedly so... If they don't like it they are free to shut the fuck up because according to the bible in Matthew 6:5-9 it says they are hypocrites who "have already earned their reward"...

I agree fully with Jonathan Sacks. A good religion does not require belief, and it’s not about the so-called supernatural. Good religion is a way of life that fosters reverence love and awe for the miracle of every second of existence. Good religion is in no way opposed to science.

There is no such thing as good religion. By definition religion persuades people to believe things for which there is no evidence, or even contrary evidence, and for this reason is immoral

A good point. Although I want nothing to do with religion, I am not offended be people and/or a religious creed that tries to treat all with full dignity and respect. Unfortunately, those creeds area a minority among religious communities.

I think good and no religion are both fine.

The equivalency of that quote doesn't hold up -- science and religion aren't equal. Bad science leads to misinformation and wrong conclusions, good science leads to fact based knowledge while bad religion leads to ignorance and superstition but so does good religion. Since religion is based on faith at the expense of critical thinking, I'd argue there is no such thing as good religion. Religion is a cancer and there's no such thing as a good cancer.

The trouble is that ordinary people who sign up to religions tend to have less understanding of the texts than the atheists who criticise those religions do, although in some cases a religion's holy text even tells the reader straight that it is the perfect and final word of God, not needing any commentary from outside to explain it - what it says is exactly what it means, so what right does anyone have to tell them they're misinterpreting it when they're getting a perfect message straight from God?

When a lot of that text is hateful (demonising and dehumanising harmless people, setting precedents for killing them and inciting their murder), how do you cure that bad religion with good religion if you aren't allowed to condemn and remove the hate? That kind of hate (in more than one religion, and in many non-religious ideologies too which copy the exact same techniques for stirring up hate), actively generates abuses all the way up to terrorism, war and genocide.

The cure is good religion? Yes - I have no problem with benign, peaceful religions that don't propagate hate through their holy texts (if I ignore the negative impact they have on children's intelligence when they're brainwashed with the god-awful stuff), but how can those religions be made good? There are plenty of good followers of violent religions who don't act on the hate themselves, but because they refuse to put the hate beyond reach of the fragile minds which are attracted by it and which act on it, they remain a powerful part of the mechanism that drives most of the world's violence, lending their authority to that hate by endorsing its container.

Perhaps someone else has already said this (I didn't get around to reading all of the previous comments) but I believe the people you are describing are antitheists; not necessarily the same as atheists. I am an atheist, I simply do not believe in any sort of gods. I think all religions are a bunch of fictional nonsense, but if others choose to believe, that is their business. As long as they don't try to impact those who don't believe as they do with their religion, I'm good.

I don't believe a direct attack on someone's belief system is very productive. I would probably make an exception if the person were threatening harm of some sort because of his religion. I work around many people who are struggling with addiction issues, and they often get very religious in the process... I feel as long as it helps them with their recovery, who am I to rock their boat? Moreover, most are not receptive to arguments involving facts and history anyway... they are proudly ignorant and feel that the strength oo itf their belief makes them super religious... it is even scarier when considered in light of the bizarre conspiracy theories making the rounds... often involving religious extremism. Aggressive confrontation plays into the narrative of all atheists as assholes.... there have been some highly visible atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who really antagonize people, with the result that they just dig in with their closed mindedness. I do enjoy throwing their own scripture back at them in the context of extreme hypocrisy...

This is the usual apologetics line very carefully dressed to look moderate. But just try inserting the word "fascism" into the text where "religion" appears, and then see how it reads.

As to bad atheism. Atheism is growing, and when something grows it is bound to be more diverse and embrace more people, many of whom will not be deeply interested or hugely understanding. If they are so then perhaps that is because the issues are no longer important, and/or perhaps because those who really understand and have deep knowledge failed to teach. Yet the educated core will also grow along with the rest, just not as fast. Atheism is not a belief, just a lack of belief, and unlike belief it does not have a dogma that must be understood or enforced.

What's your point? Are you parroting Jonathon Sacks, asking for opinions, or just presenting an unsupported argument?

I feel the same way a lot of the times. The rise of non denominational individuals, especially amongst millennials represents a major paradigm shift in the way people think about and treat religion. People are starting to believe in whatever makes them feel right and that opens up doors to for all sorts of niche beliefs, some of which may have adverse effects. People need something larger than themselves to believe in, and that doesn't have to be religion. It could be your , science, politics, an ideology, social activism, your job, or your social group.

It may be better if someone intentionally filled the void by giving people a goal to work for. Most religions are based on the past, and in the past they should stay. The roll of religions should not be to fight science, but rather to work with it, interpreting the knowledge gained into something that allows people to understand and accept their place in the world. No dogma, no lies, all metaphysics.

Science tells us the universe is billions of years old, incomprehensibly large, and expanding. What does the bible say about that?

I see what your saying and you make a lot of good points with your post. One the reasons I joined this website was to learn about living life without religion and seeing the side of religion has on others.

There's definitely a spectrum of harmfulness in religion from profound to very minor as well as distinct threads of goodness (though I'd contend good religious people would be good areligious people; association is not cause). And in spaces like this we (especially Americans) tend to address what is before us (Christian fundamentalism) as if it's all (or even most) of Christianity or as if in and of itself it is a monolith. Also, many of us (myself included) are refugees from the evangelical world and have been harmed by it.

I think Americans especially can be forgiven for this. Our country is being ripped apart right now by factions largely enabled by Christian fundamentalist / dominionist ideology. We're experiencing first-hand what religion can do when taken to its "logical" conclusion.

Even for all that, most of us don't mindlessly think that there aren't good / well meaning religious people, as well as relatively harmless and even in ways helpful factions.

While I do point out where appropriate, things such as, unbelievers actually have a lot of practical common cause with liberal believers, I would be more kindly disposed toward Christianity generally if liberals made more of a practice of calling out their extremist brethren rather than distancing themselves from them. While liberal and fundamentalist wings of Christianity (and other religions) are very different takes on the same source material, I'm troubled by the lack of self-awareness by milder / liberal Christians around the very real problems caused by the failed epistemology of religious faith.

Religions need to be called out when they teach horrible concepts, like the permanence of hell, to vulnerable non critical children.To stand by and let religious fundamentalists get away with psychological child abuse is a sign of personal cowardice. I recently had a heated argument with a religious co worker who was telling her kids that they will go to hell if they don’t accept Jesus into their hearts, she said this to her kids after one of them was engaging in critical inquiry on the matter of Christianity, when she mentioned this to me I gave her my blunt reply saying how wrong of her she was for doing that given their really young ages. She told me to mind my own business and I preceded to mention that what she said to her kids is strikingly similar to a physical threat. After another 1 1/2 minute of bickering, we were stopped by our supervisor and we preceded to continue on with our work. I know who these kids are and the parents pretty much restrict these kids to a point that they no longer feel like doing anything that would stir the wrath of their insane religious nut parents.

P.S Theology can be obscured by opportunistic authoritarians who want to control the minds of their congregations by teaching them non sensical concepts with nice sounding words. Theology is more of a tool of control rather than the method of inquiry it claims to be.

"Bad religion" (Besides a great punk band) is a belief system overlaid on bad methodology. Bad science is just bad methodology, and that's fixable. But "Good religion" is still just a belief system overlaid on bad methodology. If you fix the methodology, it's not religion anymore.