[Xujhan]

Nightmare, EV: In essence yes, I'm against organized religion. If hypothetically you could bring together a group of people based on similar beliefs that they had each cultivated themselves, and ensure that new members in the group also had all reached their beliefs through internal thought and reflection, I think that would be an okay organized religion. I've never heard of any religion working that way though, and the facts are that most religious people are religious because that's how they were raised. Not all, obviously; EV is proof of that herself, but the majority are.

My main problem with religious indoctrination of children is that it has such a huge impact on who those people become. If you're brought up believing that the square root of 27 is 9, it's pretty easy for someone to show you mathematically that you're wrong, and no one's going to say "Well, you present a valid argument, but despite that I choose to believe that root 27 is 9." Nothing but religion has such an unarguable finality about it and if even one thing is that religion is harmful it can be incredibly difficult to break otherwise good people of that belief. Being taught religious faith too young in life robs children of the free will to decide their own beliefs. More than anything else, that's what I object to in organized religion.

I agree that religion is hardly the only means of controlling people, but I think it's the worst for a number of reasons. For one, American society is tolerant to a fault regarding freedom of religion. Without religion as an excuse, Fred Phelps and his ilk would owe literally billions of dollars in harassment and discrimination charges. Freedom of speech doesn't extend far enough to allow hate speech, but in large swaths of American communities freedom of religion does. Frankly, that disgusts me. And going back to an earlier point, corruption in religion is much more damaging than almost anywhere else because of the sheer faith people put in it. A corrupt company? Boycott their goods. A corrupt government? Elect a new party. A corrupt religion? How do you convince millions upon millions of people to find a new faith? And while being one of the greatest potential sources of corruption in our society, it also does some of the least good. I'm not so cynical to argue that it does no good at all, but what good it does do can be done in other, less potentially harmful ways.

Arguing and promoting atheism might be a little hypocritical of me, in that I support people choosing their own beliefs and here I am trying to change someone else's, but I don't think I'm causing any harm by doing so. For one, I only actually try to convince when the other person has joined the debate willingly; I try not to preach. Secondly, by necessity I only debate with people old enough to be completely capable of forming their own opinions so I am at worst broadening their viewpoint; it would be impossible for me to actually indoctrinate someone into atheism. Thirdly, atheist beliefs don't do any harm. All they do is free people to act entirely themselves, without checking their actions against a religious code. To quote someone or other; "Good people will be good, and evil people will be evil. But for a good person to do evil, that takes religion."

And just in case it hasn't been made clear yet, I have absolutely no problem with any beliefs whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, a good person is a good person even if they believe the world is flat and exists on an unusually large tea tray. At worst, they're just a slightly misinformed good person. It's organized religion and those who organize it to which I object, not the masses of good people who follow them. I count many of them among my good friends, and consider myself lucky for knowing them. All their beliefs do is give us something to argue amicably over the dinner table.

</end wall o' text, sorry 'bout that>