Is organized religion dangerous to society?

>Every atheist is an egoist

Your mom is a spook, so I shall wilt to do her

Same stands for Christianity.

Perhaps it was religion that was created to justify certain behaviours within societies.

Sometimes it cannot.

Are you happy? Never studying humanities beyond skimming wikipedia articles and arguing with likewise hopeless nobodies on a forum about fundamental ethical precepts repeating the same discussions ad infinitum?

What do you pursue with these conversations?

>athiests who aren't egoists
*are all hypocrites who derive their mores from traditions set down by things they don't believe in. Because religion is the basis for all morality.

What is wrong with murder in itself?

Which ones? Depends. Islamic State IS
bad. IMHO. Geology religion is good.
We believe: The present is the key
to the past. We could be wrong,
Who knows? Anyway, my HO.

>Never studying humanities beyond skimming wikipedia articles
>

On rare occasions there are good threads with intelligent anons. I'm also bored.

>being bored

>All religions are the same.
>Society is basically good.

Grow up.

pic related

Geology religion? Haha

I ask why you say religion is the "basis" for all morality, implying there are complementary systems other than the religious. Do you think the other ethical and philosophical arguments for morality we have developed collapse without a religious base? None of that is salvageable into a purely secular system? Does religious morality supersede the secular moral system we simultaneously have and utilize?

Murder violates the social contract we have created. "Wrongness," or morality, does not matter. There are practical, secular reasons to oppose wanton murder.

>It creates an alternate morality that could challenge the state and the rule of law
Generally speaking that's a good thing, you don't want the state to have a monopoly on morality.

Define harmful

The ethics you talk about are mere opiniona one can debate about.
This is a very basic issue.

meh, it is not dangerous per se, organized religion has a function, especially in lesser developed nations. As soon as society develops to first world levels, the importance of religion deteriorates rapidly.

You're going to have to help me out here because I have no fucking clue what that response is supposed to mean.

I don't see how state-mandated morality is desireable, given every single shot at Communism ever tried.

Git out, Tsar Nicholas II

>Same stands for Christianity
why?

I also want to know what this means.

Second.

Organized religion WAS society for most of recorded history. Nothing mattered beyond it, and it's what held people together in a community and with order. At least that's true for western society.

It can be dangerous, I believe. It can also be beneficial. Obviously it depends on what a specific practice believes or does. If they believe the world should be destroyed and rape is okay, then yes I would say they are dangerous. But that seems more reflective of the believers than the religion itself. You certainly can't ban religion.

When "Society" is deified, as it is, I can only say yes. But it is "dangerous" in the way that monotheism was dangerous to polytheism, at the advent of the former

(cont'd)
Also religions can raise a lot of charity and are good ways for people to get involved and give back. In that case I don't see how it can be any harm. Religions do a lot of good for society in terms of volunteer work. They also are the basis of many schools and hospitals.