Atheist group sues over proposed cross at 9/11 memorial

[Alan]

Did you get that, Jack?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

The fact that you think this is about "ramming ideas down throats" shows you don't understand this issue Sterrn.

This isn't about offense, or lapses in politeness, or forcing their religion or lack thereof on others; it's about what is equitable.

That cross isn't going to force anyone to be a Christian, but it is a HUGE indicator that "America is a CHRISTIAN nation" and planting that like a flag on Ground zero, especially after the "Mosque at ground zero" incident sends a very distinct "us vs them" message. It's existence at the site allows Christians to claim 9-11 for them and their god to the exclusion of everyone else.

If this was about people "Forcing their beliefs down your throats" the group wouldn't have included equal time for other religious displays as an option in the lawsuit. Then we can at least have a fair and equal dialogue. (Kinda like we're having now, except your arguments suck).

Either remove ALL religious relics and symbols from the monument, or make equal room for every single belief and lack thereof. That's only fair.

It still is forcing someone elses religion upon people who may not choose to participate.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

It still is forcing someone elses religion upon people who may not choose to participate.

Ok are you just being this thick on purpose or something?

[Still Jack]

Originally Posted by Alan

Did you get that, Jack?

Yeah, I did get it, buy my opinion on it isn't valid since :

a) I don't give a fuck about anybodies religious beliefs, they are all equally ridiculous.
b) I don't live in the U.S. so I don't have the whole volatile emotional bullshit of the whole scenario around me .
c) It's obvious as it is that America's government has never been detached from Christianity anyway.

I don't think there should be anything there at all. In my opinion the only reason why people are kicking up a fuss about this is because it's on American soil and in the first world. People die as a result of extremist violence almost daily. Yet no-one gives a fuck about them. Caring so much about a religious symbol is utterly ridiculous. I the victims family really cared about their family members that much, they would only care that an act of violence doesn't happen to anyone else and would be campaigning against religious extremism now. Instead they are getting all bent out of shape about a religious symbol that doesn't appertain to their belief system. That's the kind of bullshit that sparks religious extremist violence. it's the whole childish we're right, you're wrong scenario. I reckon everybody should just let it go. Eventually there's probably gonna be a mall on top of it anyway....

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

Yeah, I did get it, buy my opinion on it isn't valid since :

a) I don't give a fuck about anybodies religious beliefs, they are all equally ridiculous.
b) I don't live in the U.S. so I don't have the whole volatile emotional bullshit of the whole scenario around me .
c) It's obvious as it is that America's government has never been detached from Christianity anyway.

I don't think there should be anything there at all. In my opinion the only reason why people are kicking up a fuss about this is because it's on American soil and in the first world. People die as a result of extremist violence almost daily. Yet no-one gives a fuck about them. Caring so much about a religious symbol is utterly ridiculous. I the victims family really cared about their family members that much, they would only care that an act of violence doesn't happen to anyone else and would be campaigning against religious extremism now. Instead they are getting all bent out of shape about a religious symbol that doesn't appertain to their belief system. That's the kind of bullshit that sparks religious extremist violence. it's the whole childish we're right, you're wrong scenario. I reckon everybody should just let it go. Eventually there's probably gonna be a mall on top of it anyway....

Because everyone knows it's completely impossible to campaign for more then one thing at a time, right?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

Ok are you just being this thick on purpose or something?

No, I get it is about representing all religions equally, but in its current form it is still pushing one religion over another, which is forcing a single religion upon people.

A bigger issue with that point is that one of the groups that brought the lawsuit is ATHEIST. It doesn't matter how many other religions you INCLUDE, they are still going to be upset that religion of any sort was included. It doesn't matter which religion it is, their religious beliefs are that there is no religion.

You can't very well incorporate atheist icons in a religious montage now can you?

[Ben Lahnger]

I wouldn't have a problem with religious icons being displayed on the site that represented all the views of the families of the victims. Not that I really have a horse in this race ... I think it's a lot of rage over a small thing.

(BTW, the Atheists need to come up with a really groovy, iconic symbol that they can display in such places.)

So ... since this site is a mass graveyard, among other things, is there a reason the Atheists are protesting a cross at this site and not protesting the crosses displayed at ... say, Arlington Cemetery?

I ask sincerely.

[Still Jack]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

Because everyone knows it's completely impossible to campaign for more then one thing at a time, right?

I did point out that my opinion is redundant.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I wouldn't have a problem with religious icons being displayed on the site that represented all the views of the families of the victims. Not that I really have a horse in this race ... I think it's a lot of rage over a small thing.

(BTW, the Atheists need to come up with a really groovy, iconic symbol that they can display in such places.)

So ... since this site is a mass graveyard, among other things, is there a reason the Atheists are protesting a cross at this site and not protesting the crosses displayed at ... say, Arlington Cemetery?

I ask sincerely.

A cemetery makes sense. It is the burial ground of one who may or may not believe in things. Arlington doesn't have a shit load of crosses everywhere, save for maybe those that have been documented to align themselves with their religion, which happens in the military, actually.

Thing is, Ground Zero is NOT a christian burial ground. It is not a pagan burial ground, it is not a muslim burial ground. It is an American burial ground. If Americans are so hard up on sentiment over 9/11 that they have to ritualize the tragedy and plant flags to lay claim to their pain in the event, then plant some fucking American flags there.

Atheists will ALWAYS be pissed about the presence of religious symbols and sentiment on public lands and property. This is because it is a sign of how much the government and society DOES NOT REPRESENT those who have no faith.

And mother fucking fuck you in the fucking eye, Sternn for assuming that a lack of faith is a religion in of itself. This is why you need to shut your dumb mouth about this shit because YOU yourself can't conceive a world that lacks a religion as if somehow, religion is an inescapable natural law, so therefore, Atheism is a religion. That's god damned retarded. Just because you're a superstitious fuck that can't reconcile your world without a fairy tale to cling to doesn't mean every single person in the world is in some kind of superstition fantasy club like yourself.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

No, I get it is about representing all religions equally, but in its current form it is still pushing one religion over another, which is forcing a single religion upon people.

A bigger issue with that point is that one of the groups that brought the lawsuit is ATHEIST. It doesn't matter how many other religions you INCLUDE, they are still going to be upset that religion of any sort was included. It doesn't matter which religion it is, their religious beliefs are that there is no religion.

You can't very well incorporate atheist icons in a religious montage now can you?

I had a response for you, but Ashley beat me to it.

(BTW, the Atheists need to come up with a really groovy, iconic symbol that they can display in such places.)

...

...

Yeah I think it's pretty lame too...

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

A cemetery makes sense. It is the burial ground of one who may or may not believe in things. Arlington doesn't have a shit load of crosses everywhere, save for maybe those that have been documented to align themselves with their religion, which happens in the military, actually.

Thing is, Ground Zero is NOT a christian burial ground. It is not a pagan burial ground, it is not a muslim burial ground. It is an American burial ground.

So is Arlington, right?

I mean, I get that at the Arlington burial ground, there are a lot of variations of religious symbols, and many instances of no religious symbol present at individual graves. And Ground Zero is a mass grave. So I could see an argument for fair and equal representation of all views, but not a protest to just remove any religious view. Or is it really a question of military burial ground versus civilian burial ground? Individual graves versus mass grave?

Originally Posted by AshleyO

If Americans are so hard up on sentiment over 9/11 that they have to ritualize the tragedy and plant flags to lay claim to their pain in the event, then plant some fucking American flags there.

Atheists will ALWAYS be pissed about the presence of religious symbols and sentiment on public lands and property. This is because it is a sign of how much the government and society DOES NOT REPRESENT those who have no faith.

Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking response. And I am very, very glad you posted the following ... I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

And mother fucking fuck you in the fucking eye, Sternn for assuming that a lack of faith is a religion in of itself. This is why you need to shut your dumb mouth about this shit because YOU yourself can't conceive a world that lacks a religion as if somehow, religion is an inescapable natural law, so therefore, Atheism is a religion. That's god damned retarded. Just because you're a superstitious fuck that can't reconcile your world without a fairy tale to cling to doesn't mean every single person in the world is in some kind of superstition fantasy club like yourself.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

No, I get it is about representing all religions equally, but in its current form it is still pushing one religion over another, which is forcing a single religion upon people.

A bigger issue with that point is that one of the groups that brought the lawsuit is ATHEIST. It doesn't matter how many other religions you INCLUDE, they are still going to be upset that religion of any sort was included. It doesn't matter which religion it is, their religious beliefs are that there is no religion.

You can't very well incorporate atheist icons in a religious montage now can you?

It's very easy to add a plaque which says "this is here to remember the non-religious people who died here. That's what the group is suing for. It says that in the article you linked.

Do you not read your own posts?

Also: while I'm sure there are still bodies which were accidentally left under the memorial, ground zero isn't really a burial ground at all, at least in the strictest sense.

[Ben Lahnger]

Despanan, thank you for that clarification. It pretty much renders my previous questions irrelevant.

Carry on.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

So is Arlington, right?

I mean, I get that at the Arlington burial ground, there are a lot of variations of religious symbols, and many instances of no religious symbol present at individual graves. And Ground Zero is a mass grave. So I could see an argument for fair and equal representation of all views, but not a protest to just remove any religious view. Or is it really a question of military burial ground versus civilian burial ground? Individual graves versus mass grave?

I'll answer your question with a question. If anything, why do we NEED tombstones on 9/11 when we can put it to better use by building a secular American memorial and a park or shopping mall?

The idea behind having a spot to give all faiths a space is insane and a slippery slope. There can't possibly be enough space for every single religion possible.

Think about it, Ben. What kind of stink do you think will rise if I had the right to erect a huge fuck off upside down pentagram right next to that cross? Do we only allow religions that we feels is socially acceptable or can we erect very blatant sacrilegious monuments such as satanic or occult monuments?

Because mark my words, if that cross went up and I knew I could erect a monument as well, that's the first thing I'd do if I lived in NYC. I'd erect the most offensive anti-christian religious icon possible. Then I'd challenge anyone to tell me that I didn't have the right to have a satanic monument there so that I too could mourn my loss in my way.

Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking response. And I am very, very glad you posted the following ... I couldn't agree more.

I'm classy like that.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

A cemetery makes sense. It is the burial ground of one who may or may not believe in things. Arlington doesn't have a shit load of crosses everywhere, save for maybe those that have been documented to align themselves with their religion, which happens in the military, actually.

Have you ever been to Arlington? Half of the place is all crosses.



And mother fucking fuck you in the fucking eye, Sternn for assuming that a lack of faith is a religion in of itself. This is why you need to shut your dumb mouth about this shit because YOU yourself can't conceive a world that lacks a religion as if somehow, religion is an inescapable natural law, so therefore, Atheism is a religion. That's god damned retarded. Just because you're a superstitious fuck that can't reconcile your world without a fairy tale to cling to doesn't mean every single person in the world is in some kind of superstition fantasy club like yourself.[/quote]

Again, your choice of religion, or lack-there-of seems to incite hatred only equaled by that of the right-wing conservative evangelicals. I don't know what is worse, their warped views which they use as a cudgel to attack people with different views, or your own. You seem to be just as ignorant and adamant about that ignorance on the same level.

The bottom line is when you fill out a census form or any form that asks about your religion, you have to check a box. That isn't me 'forcing' your concept of no religion into religious categories, it is a simple fact of life. Like checking a box that asks SEX or ETHNICITY. You have to be something, even if that something is that you do not believe in anything.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's very easy to add a plaque which says "this is here to remember the non-religious people who died here. That's what the group is suing for. It says that in the article you linked.

Do you not read your own posts?

Then there are the other plantiffs who do not want any crosses or things there at all:

Two Jewish plaintiffs said they find the cross "offensive and repugnant to their beliefs."

Also: while I'm sure there are still bodies which were accidentally left under the memorial, ground zero isn't really a burial ground at all, at least in the strictest sense.

Shipwrecks where people have died are considered buried grounds and protected by law. There would be little difference here.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Have you ever been to Arlington? Half of the place is all crosses.

A non argument. Arlington is a cemetery of veterans. Each person that enlists lets the service know what their faith is and in the even that they die, they're buried accordingly. Ground Zero is a thousand times different.

Again, your choice of religion, or lack-there-of seems to incite hatred only equaled by that of the right-wing conservative evangelicals. I don't know what is worse, their warped views which they use as a cudgel to attack people with different views, or your own. You seem to be just as ignorant and adamant about that ignorance on the same level.

Sternn. I don't have to respect your religion. It's ethnocidal and disgusting and BAD philosophy. But you're lucky because I don't even CARE about your religion. This argument is super retarded and you're only responding to my virility and not my reasoning. There's a HUGE difference about being extreme about the wrong things, being extreme about the correct things, and being neither and thinking the middle of the road is somehow always better than an actual correct solution. The middle of the road is NOT a reasonable or even best go to solution. You have extreme views about America. Are you telling me that you're actually wrong for believing what you believe about America?

The bottom line is when you fill out a census form or any form that asks about your religion, you have to check a box. That isn't me 'forcing' your concept of no religion into religious categories, it is a simple fact of life. Like checking a box that asks SEX or ETHNICITY. You have to be something, even if that something is that you do not believe in anything.

That doesn't mean it's a religion though. That's just for statistics. Just because I put atheist on my census paper doesn't mean you can or should assume that you put me next to methodists, zionist, or muslims.

[AshleyO]

Thing is, Sterrn is that you don't care about the ideas or the message or the thought behind extremism. You only care about the emotional content, the rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. You only care about that parts that don't matter.

Just so long as people aren't yelling, you don't have to worry about it. So emotionally, your solution is that so long as we're all whispering about our beliefs, it's all okay. You know, so long as we're polite about ethnocide, it's fine to cleave to bad ideas.

[Despanan]

Atheism is not a positive belief. It's not a belief in nothing, it's a lack of belief.

Why do people keep getting that wrong?

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Atheism is not a positive belief. It's not a belief in nothing, it's a lack of belief.

Why do people keep getting that wrong?

Because most of society agrees with Sternn when he says...

You have to be something, even if that something is that you do not believe in anything.

[AshleyO]

Nah, that's fine, really. You CAN be an atheist. It's not a lack of existing as a person.

It's the mistake that atheism requires practice like a religion requires practice.

Atheists don't have to remind themselves that there is no god. There is no ritual, there is no code of ethics to adhere to. Atheism is NOT the religion of non-belief. It's just an acknowledgement that there is no super natural force.

The misconceptions of atheism is that people think we're a group of people bent on destroying religion and that it's a project we work on in order to make the world a godless and "sinful" place. That can't be further from the truth.

I think the most an atheist can reasonably expect is for religion to know its boundaries. It has no place in politics and no place to be represented by the greater public at large, even though it does have a place, and that the world should be based purely on reason in its practice before being based on religious thought.

I've never heard of a fair and legitimate argument as to why religion deserves or needs to be a part of our greater public outlook and considerations.

There's not a good legitimate reason for a Christian monument to be erected on Ground Zero. Sure, it'll make a small select few people feel better, but it doesn't represent the public as a whole.

This debate as to letting all faiths have an equal amount of space on Ground Zero is an absolute slippery slope. We can't possibly accommodate for all of them and it's insulting and unfair to erect monuments to the most popular religions and then giving a space as "other" for everyone else. That's bullshit.

[CptSternn]

I thought this article was quite appropriate...

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759...-agree-on.html

[AshleyO]

I will NOT agree on anything that article says.

There is a significant difference between the asshole atheist and the asshole fundie. The fundie is an asshole because they read an exclusive book that says this is how the world needs to be and burn in fire if you disagree and they champion that madness. The atheist is an asshole simply because they have to be. They HAVE to constantly be the fly in the ointment of religious social engineering lest society once again, unfairly gives accommodation to a very small minority of special interest groups. IE, a cross on Ground Zero.

If you seriously have a very hard time seeing the distinction between the assholes and can't tell a difference, it's not evidence of your post-modern thought or evidence of your ability to be smart about it, it's just evidence of your inability to understand the argument. It's probably best you keep quiet about it.

[Despanan]

Ug. I hate that article. While it was mildly entertaining, what I really hate is the straw-atheist stereotype he invoked in order to get his: "Well you're both wrong, so shake hands and make-up" argument.

Few things I wanted to clear up:

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

-I hate this argument. Mainly because I used to employ it regularly. What's wrong with this is that it supposes that atheism is a creed or belief system on-par with Christianity and other religions. It is not. Atheists are not a quantifiable group with tenants that we all follow, nor is there a unifying atheist ideology. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s) and held colloquially as a rejection of the supernatural.

The closest anyone ever came to killing in the name of atheism was during the French Revolution, when clergy members were killed and a "shrine to reason" was raised in an attempt to create a "cult of reason" but they weren't dying in the name of atheism, they were dying in the name of this "cult of reason".

Even if I, as an atheist killed a christian because I saw his ideology as dangerous to society and thus he must be silenced at all costs, however I wouldn't be killing in the name of atheism, I'd be killing in the name of a peaceful society. My lack of belief in god(s) would be related to this killing only tangentially.

Originally Posted by Cracked.com

Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.

When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!"

No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently.

Even though there's no "wrong" molecule floating in the air and there's no "justice" element on the Periodic Table. You don't think of the swindler as just a fellow animal who happens to behave differently than you. You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey.

When that "boob at the Super Bowl" incident happened a while back, I constantly heard atheists making fun of Christians and their puritan silliness over sex. "Come on! It's just meat! We're all just mammals! Sex is natural! What are you afraid of?!?!?"

Yet, the moment you find out that while you were on vacation, your girl got drunk and slept with the entire Chicago Bears. Suddenly sex is something to get upset about. Suddenly it's not just meat slapping against meat. Suddenly the exclusive sexual bond between you and your girl was important, was to be protected, was almost... sacred.

Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic. Whatever it is, wherever you think it came from, you can't deny that it's there. Your own behavior would make you a liar.

(Doorbell Wrong wrong wrong wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong!

This presents an atheist who is intellectually honest and behaves as if his morality is independent of a supernatural influence as some sort of emotionless robo-vulcan.

Ideas of "wrong" and "justice" are human creations which spring from our emotional aversion to anti-social acts which has been hard-coded into our DNA by CENTURIES of evolution. There's nothing mystical or supernatural about love or jealousy or a desire to see a social injustice corrected. Those of us who had the brain chemistry to respond this way lived and passed on their DNA, those of us who did not ended up not having kids while the Chicago bears passed on their superior genetics through that guys drunken girlfriend.

It only appears that we live as though divine morality is true, because religion has managed to falsely plant a flag on basic human decency; when in fact, the belief or lack of belief in god(s) and other supernatural phenomenon has nothing to do with justice, love, jealousy or a sense of "wrongness" This "invisible line" this "unspoken rule" that the author refers to as something which "can't be proven by logic" is actually just the social contract, which is very logical having arisen from human emotion and empathy, which was hard-coded into our DNA by evolution.

Honestly, this article is offending me more and more, the more I think about it. But more on that at the end, shall we continue?

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

Uhh...yeah? and? this is blatantly obvious (at least to me). Our belief systems are in direct conflict. They insist that there is an giant invisible man in the sky who reacts like an emotionally unstable boyfriend and fucks us up everytime he thinks we don't love him enough, dress the way he wants us to, or in general do something other than what he demands, and I say they're full of shit.

This is an offensive position on both sides. I intend to offend because the existence/non-existence of this giant Lifetime Channel antagonist is a pretty important thing. If they're wrong then they have no business telling the rest of us how to live or lives, if I'm wrong Bobby-Joe is going to be giving me black eyes for eternity.

I guess the point of this is to instruct us to be aware and be polite, but once again, for the most part it's already frowned upon to bring up religion (or lack thereof) in polite society. Here's the thing though: These are my beliefs, and this is an important thing, and this is the first age in which religion can (for the most part) be freely criticized without fear of physical and social repercussion. For 2000 years Christianity spread by the sword. Just 200 years ago I would've been killed for holding the opinions I do. 50 years ago I would've lost my job and my friends. Even today, my opinions make it impossible for someone like me to hold public office.

This is wrong. and since this is the first age in which religion can be reasonably criticized people like me have the right and the obligation to criticize mystical thinking in the appropriate social context. Will some people be offended by it? Of course, but the alternative is atheists clamming up and allowing the Theists to continue to monopolize political power.

atheists like to pretend they're islands of pure, rational thought in a sea of wild-eyed craziness. But we all have a little crazy in our world, and we all depend on some fantasy that floats outside the boundaries of cold reason.

The atheists who act like this are idiots. Also: I do not, in fact "depend upon some fantasy that floats outside the boundaries of cold reason".

Atheists still tell their girlfriends they "love" them, and not that they simply feel a psychological artifact of a biochemical bond generated by the mating instinct. They still refer to their "mind" as if it's something more than chemical switches. And remember what we talked about with "justice" and "right" and "wrong." None of it is scientific.

1) Duh, we're people not mecha-Vulcans.

2) Because it IS far more complex than a bunch of switches you friggin' moron

3) And as i said, it all actually IS very scientific. You're just uneducated.

More to come...

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Cracked.com

Even weirder? Free will. Remember, to a neuroscientist, free will is every bit as real as the Tooth Fairy. They can watch your neurons light up at the moment you make moral decisions, can trace the exact electrochemical pathways. If there is nothing beyond the physical, then your ability to choose your actions vanishes along with God and Heaven and the angels. It was an atheist professor who told me that, in a class on ethics.

Two days later, he told me if I was ever late to class again, he'd knock 100 points off my grade.

To deter me from being late in the future.

As if I had the free will to be late or on time.

Either you misunderstood him, or your professor was an idiot who was trying to shock his class. Just because we have an explanation for exactly HOW and WHY things happen in our mind does not negate "free will" as we understand it, nor does it abdicate you from your own social responsibilities you lazy fuck.

Which is amazing, considering that the "church" is made up entirely of Phelps' family and a few friends. That's it. And they're world famous, mainly because atheists looooooove to hold them up as an example of what dicks Christians are. When you need an icon of intolerance, they're as useful to have around as Hitler.

I think Phelps and the like are world famous due to the fact that they're some of the most insanely incendiary fucks the modern world has ever seen not because atheists secretly delight in using them as an example of why Christianity is bad. In fact, I don't think I've EVER seen an atheist use the Westboro baptist church as an argument against Christianity, mainly because that's a poor argument. I'm not interested in breaking the faith of people like Phelps, I'm interested in breaking the faith of moderate lay-Christians who go to church on Sundays and vote republican. I want to attack THEIR ideas because their ideas are the one's people listen to and cause people to vote a certain way. Phelps is a joke, it's the Christians who are taken seriously that I'm interested in taking down.

Atheists. You hate wars. You hate genocide, you hate iron-fisted dictators who line up peasants and jump over them with monster trucks.

Actually, that last bit sounds pretty awesome.

You hate it when corporations steal your money, and when fat suburbanites will let a million Africans starve before they'll donate. You hate guys who treat women like lifeless sex dolls, guys who lie and leave.

You hate all of that, because you know that the ability to have empathy for other humans (even those who don't benefit us) is the only thing that separates us from the cockroaches.

Actually a lot more separates us from cockroaches. For one thing, I don't have six legs and can't live through a nuclear war.

And when that fails, it's terrifying and awful in countless ways.

In the middle of a religious debate, you may say that religion and superstition are the prime evil in human society. But you look behind it, and you'll find that other monster is bigger. Humans doing the opposite, acting like animals. Treating other humans as nothing but engines for their own pleasure.

No, religion is not the prime evil of human society. I will be the first to admit that a great deal of good has come out of religion, However, everything good about religion, the community, the charity, the compassion, the social contract exists independently of the belief in god(s). Everything good that Jesus taught, we have without Jesus so why keep around all the mysticism and superstition? Why keep around the bigotry and misogyny and intolerance? Why keep around and base a life off of a book written by pissed off desert nomads to whom the concept of indoor plumbing would have totally blown their minds.

Religion - whether it was handed down by God or just invented by a bunch of guys- serves mainly to fight that. It makes humanity sacred, and the moral law moreso. You can hate the methods it uses, you can say that there are other ways, you can say that it only replaces one cancer with another. But most of what it's trying to get you to do - treat other humans as sacred and put morality above your own impulses - you already do. And you criticize religion mainly for not doing it.

I criticize religion for twisting other people's brains and causing them to waste their lives in vain pursuit of the code of an imaginary authoritarian douchebag in the sky. I criticize religion for appropriating things like compassion and empathy and placing a divine stamp on them. I criticize religion for treating adults like children and forcing them to submit to an authoritarian parent figure - for all the good it does Christianity still coerces people by forcing adherence to their code with the belief in something that is unverifiable and unprovable, by straight-up conditioning children to accept this beings existence through social means and using their brainwashed chattel to assert political and social control over the rest of us. Yes I criticize it for dehumanizing man as well, but honestly there's way more to it than that.

On further reading, that author is honestly so ignorant and his opinions so offensive to both Christians and atheists alike that I can only conclude he's either some sort of straight-up moron, or one of the most brilliant trolls I've ever seen.