Is religion bondage or freedom?

[blazeofglory]

We have discussed much on regions and some discussions have gone extreme to the extent I do not want them to go. I never have the motive of hurting the sentiment of a cohort of faiths or religious followers. Yet in a supposedly free world I often love to raise a series of Questions. At times by questioning we will reach a point at which the question becomes the answers or to put it differently, question and answer side with each other or both are one and the same. This is a philosophical proposition. I want to go into it and beyond through a string of discussions.

I at times feel religion has been a bondage or a fetter to me and I was taught to consider people considering their regions or castes. That was what I was taught by my parents. I was not allowed to marry outside my caste or religion.
Hat there been no religion I would have been free to marry anyone outside my castes. There are too many rituals or rites associated with religions. There are too many dos and don'ts.

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?

[Leland Gaunt]

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?

I suppose it depends on how seriously you take your religion. Religion is quite a domineering concept; it lays down morality, defines the realities of the universe, and may even set a schedule for your day. So, if you do believe, it becomes a fairly large part of who you are. Now, if you don't take all that seriously, why be apart of that religion? In my opinion, if you try to create an identity separate from you religion, you will then experience some degree of conflicting ideals and beliefs.

[.Kafka]

I do not believe the terms 'bondage' and 'freedom' exist in such harmonious distinction. To be free, is to be bound, and to be be bound, is in a way, to be free. Social humans are bound to language - meaning is created through an interaction with language - religion like the term 'freedom' is a meaning. People are cultivated. People have unique finger prints. People disagree on grounds of taste and sensibility. I like lentils. I think you should eat lentils. Am I struggling beneath bondage? People compartmentalize. Zebra's often get along best with other Zebra's. Why? Zebra nature. What is that? Common ground, human nature is. I have encountered radical vegetarians and meek religious fundamentalists, the line that divides is also the line that creates. I hope this answers your question.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

We have discussed much on regions and some discussions have gone extreme to the extent I do not want them to go. I never have the motive of hurting the sentiment of a cohort of faiths or religious followers. Yet in a supposedly free world I often love to raise a series of Questions. At times by questioning we will reach a point at which the question becomes the answers or to put it differently, question and answer side with each other or both are one and the same. This is a philosophical proposition. I want to go into it and beyond through a string of discussions.

I at times feel religion has been a bondage or a fetter to me and I was taught to consider people considering their regions or castes. That was what I was taught by my parents. I was not allowed to marry outside my caste or religion.
Hat there been no religion I would have been free to marry anyone outside my castes. There are too many rituals or rites associated with religions. There are too many dos and don'ts.

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?

Blaze, I can always turn to your thread when I want some good discussions. You always pose the most mind invigorating questions. I never get tired of it and I like it.

Well, whether religion is "bondage" or "freedom" depends on the individual, I believe. Sometimes, just as others do, I feel religion is bondage too. However, most of the time, I feel it is truly freedom.

Imagine a kite flying in the sky. It's beautiful. The string attach to that kite keeps it from flying away and the wind keeps it lifted. Now, imagine that there were no strings attach to that kite. It would still be beautiful and fly for a brief period of time but, without the string, it will eventually fall onto the ground.

The string is there to accompany the kite and so is the wind. The person holding the kite can keep it safe until another day to fly when the weather is right.

That's what I believe.

As for your last question, I actually don't it to be necessary to introduce ourselves through religion. It is our decision whether or not to introduce ourselves through that means.

[romeyblack]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

[BienvenuJDC]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

While there are SOME religions and sects that put their followers under bondage, I think that it is a foolish statement to blanket it. To be without faith is a bondage of itself. No matter what one believes, there is bondage to something...whether it is money (or greed) or even self. Self gratification is a bondage of itself. Since God sent His Son here to establish a standard which is one of the many religions (which some are perversions of the original), then religion is not that which causes bondage, but it is false religion that enslaves.

[Redzeppelin]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

Most wars are fought over real estate. The largest body counts of the 20th century were generated by atheist regimes (Stalin, China, Pol Pot).

Religion is a necessary evil because people cannot agree on the character of God; as such, they will naturally gather with those who are like minded.

All humans serve something outside themselves: that thing may be God, money, sex, drugs, food, etc. All things we serve that aren't God eventually become life-damaging addictions (and most people would consider addiction "enslavement"). Serving God allows you not feel the need to enslave yourself to something that will eventually kill you or at the least, make your life miserable.

[Buh4Bee]

Why can't people understand that religion is not an easy thing and that it is hard- hence the perception of bondage. At times it feels tight and uncomfortable, but it is the process, the long haul, that one finds freedom.

[Heteronym]

Religion is bondage, so vile and absolute, it's amazing how men invented. Religion, by emphasising the spiritual over the material, has been one of the greatest beacons of misanthropism in the history of Mankind. It has arrested the intellectual development of Mankind and has made men ashamed of being men. Just about every religion can be guilty of this.

The Greek and Roman mythologies are full of poor victims of brutal, merciless punishments. A woman is better than the gods at weaving so she's turned into a spider. A hunter innocently finds a goddess bathing in a strea, is transformed into a deer and eaten by his own dogs. Apollo flays Marsyas still alive. The message is clear: submit, submit, submit, curb your potential.

Christianity, by preaching that the rewards of this world are in the next, has contributed to the paralysis of thinking and development. Why try to improve the world if real paradise is somewhere?

I read somewhere, apologies for not having a source, that the majority of the Koran speaks of war.

And even supposedly noble and peaceful religions like Buddhism and Hinduism are horrifying. Buddhism preaches that man's path to peace is his own anihilation to avoid the cycle of suffering and rebirth. Like Christianity, it shows a complete contempt for the physical world.

And Hinduism, with that deranged concept of the caste of the untouchables, has committed one of the greatest crimes of human dignity by men against other men.

Not to mention all the discord religion has caused over the millennia, all the wars it has inspired, its hold on education, science and knowledge, its treatment of women, its support of slavery, and its usual propensity to side with the ruling classes to function as a social anaesthesia, to stop men, with empty promises of an imaginary better world, of trying to make paradise here, on this planet that is the only place we can call home and should care for.

[Redzeppelin]

Religion is bondage, so vile and absolute, it's amazing how men invented. Religion, by emphasising the spiritual over the material, has been one of the greatest beacons of misanthropism in the history of Mankind. It has arrested the intellectual development of Mankind and has made men ashamed of being men. Just about every religion can be guilty of this.

It is fully illogical for men to "create" that which benefits nobody. What appears "bondage" to some is in actuality freedom. As I posted above, nobody is really "free" - we all seek something to give ourselves to in this life - if what we give ourselves to is not God (God, not religion, mind you) then we will give ourselves to something else - drugs, food, sex, money, power, gambling, relationships, work, and a hundred other self-destructive things.

As far as "arrested intellectual development," that claim is not wholly accurate. There is nothing in Christianity (I can only speak for the religion I know) that suggests that ignorance is good and that intellectual development is bad. Anybody who took the time to read even a portion of CS Lewis's work, for instance, would be quite clear on the level of intellect functioning behind his prose.

The Greek and Roman mythologies are full of poor victims of brutal, merciless punishments. A woman is better than the gods at weaving so she's turned into a spider. A hunter innocently finds a goddess bathing in a strea, is transformed into a deer and eaten by his own dogs. Apollo flays Marsyas still alive. The message is clear: submit, submit, submit, curb your potential.

Comparing Greek and Roman mythology to Christianity is absurd. There are virtually NO correspondences between the two. The Greek/Roman gods were little more than glorified human beings with exactly the same flaws as the humans; such a being is hardly a "god" by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the "submit" part, your use of Greek/Roman mythology creates a convenient straw man for you to knock down; in Christianity that is far more difficult to do. In Christianity we submit our will to one who simply knows better than we do. If I am to survive a trek through the Amazon jungle, I would be a fool to trust my own judgment if I've never been there before; I would need an experienced guide and I'd be a double fool to ignore my guide's instructions; in Christian theology, God created the world, and He created me as well; it makes perfect sense to submit to He who knows better than I how to survive in this world; it makes sense to submit my will to one who knows me far better than I will ever know myself.

Christianity, by preaching that the rewards of this world are in the next, has contributed to the paralysis of thinking and development. Why try to improve the world if real paradise is somewhere?

A handy generalization, but untrue. Christianity does not advocate a withdrawal from this world; we are to be actively involved in it - the emphasis on the next world has to do with the sacrifices that we are required to personally make in this one. Not the same at all. The New Testament makes this quite clear.

And even supposedly noble and peaceful religions like Buddhism and Hinduism are horrifying. Buddhism preaches that man's path to peace is his own anihilation to avoid the cycle of suffering and rebirth. Like Christianity, it shows a complete contempt for the physical world.

Wrong again; Christianity does not show "contempt" for the physical world; the gospels point out the fact that we cannot hold on too tightly to the things of this world because they will pass away; we are not to hoard gold or try to build an empire of possessions because these things will not only distract us from the God who sustains and redeems us, but they will only perish anyway. The Manicheans were the sect that taught contempt for the flesh. But Christ made it clear that the things of the spirit were to take priority in our lives in setting our own priorities - but it does not suggest that the material world is to be rejected at all.

Not to mention all the discord religion has caused over the millennia, all the wars it has inspired, its hold on education, science and knowledge, its treatment of women, its support of slavery, and its usual propensity to side with the ruling classes to function as a social anaesthesia, to stop men, with empty promises of an imaginary better world, of trying to make paradise here, on this planet that is the only place we can call home and should care for.

Human beings have caused the discord with their distorted understandings of God and his will. As well, you are conveniently pulling culture out of the equation - which again is another handy straw-man. Culture is never completely missing out of the picture; ancient texts are also a product of their culture. Fortunately, the Bible (for instance) contains within it the principles that can guide a Christian man such as Wilberforce to advocate the ending of slavery.

Your broad brush strokes sound definitive, but they are neither accurate, nor fair.

As well, would you care to ravel out all the good that atheism has done in this world? How many lives it has changed for the better? How many poor and hungry it has fed? How it has improved the world? And while you're at it, why not calculate the number of people who have been killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone and compare that to the number killed in "Holy wars" and see how they pan out?

[Heteronym]

It is fully illogical for men to "create" that which benefits nobody. What appears "bondage" to some is in actuality freedom. As I posted above, nobody is really "free" - we all seek something to give ourselves to in this life - if what we give ourselves to is not God (God, not religion, mind you) then we will give ourselves to something else - drugs, food, sex, money, power, gambling, relationships, work, and a hundred other self-destructive things.

Of course most of the alternatives are are self-destructive - drus, money, gambling, etc. For who could imagine that people, without the guiding hand of religion, could become good by themselves?

As far as "arrested intellectual development," that claim is not wholly accurate. There is nothing in Christianity (I can only speak for the religion I know) that suggests that ignorance is good and that intellectual development is bad. Anybody who took the time to read even a portion of CS Lewis's work, for instance, would be quite clear on the level of intellect functioning behind his prose.

Oh, I don't doubt of the beauty of Lewis' prose, or Saint Augustine's, or of any other religious scholar. Indeed they've built a vast, beautiful and worthless body of writings over the centuries, extolling the beauty of God, justifying God's ways to men, making complicated theses to prove his existence. And meanwhile science decayed, until the Renaissance.

Comparing Greek and Roman mythology to Christianity is absurd. There are virtually NO correspondences between the two. The Greek/Roman gods were little more than glorified human beings with exactly the same flaws as the humans; such a being is hardly a "god" by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not absurd at all. Following your own reasoning, it's not absurd because the Christian god is also a flawed human being - petty, jealous, vengeful, cruel. And it's not absurd because religions are all born from the same place - the human mind - and tell the same story: man's subjection to higher beings. Change the form and the narrative, but it's all the same.

Christian theology, God created the world, and He created me as well; it makes perfect sense to submit to He who knows better than I how to survive in this world; it makes sense to submit my will to one who knows me far better than I will ever know myself.

Your guide was invented by tent-dwellers who lived in deserts like animals millennia ago. To choose to follow the advice of an experienced man is sensible; to submit to the authority of an immaterial being invented millennia ago for purposes of finding guidance in a completely different world, is nonsensical.

A handy generalization, but untrue. Christianity does not advocate a withdrawal from this world; we are to be actively involved in it - the emphasis on the next world has to do with the sacrifices that we are required to personally make in this one. Not the same at all. The New Testament makes this quite clear.

No. All you have to do is obey the commandments and confess. That's how you enter Heaven. You can be as vile as you want all your life, but if confess all is forgiven. If you die a child, you're even luckier: you just need to be baptised. That's why the very Christian Spanish Conquistadores baptised Indian babies right before smashing their skulls.

Do you know why the Romans hated the Christians? Among other things, because they were a public nuisance. Because whnever a fire broke out, the Roman firemen would fly to the spot and a horde of crazy Christians would try to stop them because it was a sign of the end of the world, the Christian's great obsession! Since the Romans weren't obsessed with the end of the world, they reasonably tried to exterminate these enemies of life. Sadly they didn't succeed.

Wrong again; Christianity does not show "contempt" for the physical world; the gospels point out the fact that we cannot hold on too tightly to the things of this world because they will pass away; we are not to hoard gold or try to build an empire of possessions because these things will not only distract us from the God who sustains and redeems us, but they will only perish anyway. The Manicheans were the sect that taught contempt for the flesh. But Christ made it clear that the things of the spirit were to take priority in our lives in setting our own priorities - but it does not suggest that the material world is to be rejected at all.

"'Inter faeces et urinem nascimur" (we are born between the feces and the urine) - St. Augustine. That's the Christian view of Man: complete and utter scum. Contempt for us, contempt for our flesh, contempt for our world, contempt for our senses.

Human beings have caused the discord with their distorted understandings of God and his will. As well, you are conveniently pulling culture out of the equation - which again is another handy straw-man. Culture is never completely missing out of the picture; ancient texts are also a product of their culture. Fortunately, the Bible (for instance) contains within it the principles that can guide a Christian man such as Wilberforce to advocate the ending of slavery.

If so many people, including very intelligent men, over a long span of time, have debated, distorted and reinterpreted the bible, chances are it's not such a useful thing after all. If A says it means black and B says it means white, the supposed guidance God gives is just a mess from beginning to start and we're better off doing away with it and finding something better.

As well, would you care to ravel out all the good that atheism has done in this world? How many lives it has changed for the better? How many poor and hungry it has fed? How it has improved the world? And while you're at it, why not calculate the number of people who have been killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone and compare that to the number killed in "Holy wars" and see how they pan out?

Suffice to say that, if Christianity hadn't curbed medical research during the middle ages, there probably wouldn't have been the Black Death that nearly wiped out Europe's population. But why bother healing the body when it's just vile matter and it's the soul that needs healing above all? The world can burn and rot so long as the immortal soul is safe.

[Redzeppelin]

Of course most of the alternatives are are self-destructive - drus, money, gambling, etc. For who could imagine that people, without the guiding hand of religion, could become good by themselves?

History bears out the reality that human beings really cannot be "good" on their own. The 20th century - the one where God largely ceased to be a large influence - was the most violent, possessing the highest body count - on record.

Oh, I don't doubt of the beauty of Lewis' prose, or Saint Augustine's, or of any other religious scholar. Indeed they've built a vast, beautiful and worthless body of writings over the centuries, extolling the beauty of God, justifying God's ways to men, making complicated theses to prove his existence. And meanwhile science decayed, until the Renaissance.

I'm not talking about prose styling - I'm talking about the minds behind the prose.

Worthless to those who do not know or understand God.

The church has not always been clear-sighted in its approach. Culture can never be fully extracted from our existence. By your standard, nobody should ever make mistakes, nobody should ever be forgiven. The church may have been anti-science in the medieval era, but that is hardly true now.

It's not absurd at all. Following your own reasoning, it's not absurd because the Christian god is also a flawed human being - petty, jealous, vengeful, cruel. And it's not absurd because religions are all born from the same place - the human mind - and tell the same story: man's subjection to higher beings. Change the form and the narrative, but it's all the same.

Nope. A comparison between Christianity and the Greek/Roman gods suggests some very clear and significant differences - anybody who has read both closely (I have) can see that the God of the Bible is very different; that He experiences human emotions (though without the taint of sin that humans do) doesn't make him the same as the Greek/Roman gods who had no clear moral code whatsoever; God behaves consistently throughout the Bible in terms of his response to right and wrong. It is only "the same" to those who do not care to investigate closely.

Your guide was invented by tent-dwellers who lived in deserts like animals millennia ago. To choose to follow the advice of an experienced man is sensible; to submit to the authority of an immaterial being invented millennia ago for purposes of finding guidance in a completely different world, is nonsensical.

In your opinion; although if you understood the complexity and cohesiveness of the Bible, you might not assert such a point. Such a work as the Bible reveals itself to be suggests a higher driving force than simply some "tent-dwellers"; to assert such is to reveal how unfamiliar you may actually be with the text in mind.
God is only "immaterial" to you because you have chosen not to believe in him; that is your prerogative. However, to suggest that he does not exist requires you to have exhaustive knowledge of the contents of the universe; I doubt you possess that, so your dismissal carries no more weight than my insistence.

No. All you have to do is obey the commandments and confess. That's how you enter Heaven. You can be as vile as you want all your life, but if confess all is forgiven. If you die a child, you're even luckier: you just need to be baptised. That's why the very Christian Spanish Conquistadores baptised Indian babies right before smashing their skulls.

Untrue. Although there will be people who accept God at the last second, unless it is sincere, it won't count - God knows the human heart to its tiniest molecule - he knows if the repentance is sincere; as well, the human heart can reach a point of no return; living a life of lawlessness carries the risk that the person won't want to come back to God - so it's not quite as easy as you say. The person who desires a relationship with God eventually becomes the kind of person who doesn't want to engage in sinful things - though in truth, we never fully escape sin in this life. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation; it is simply a public affirmation of one's choice - God saves on the merit of the human heart; children (who have not had the chance to make the informed choice or to even understand who God is) are saved by virtue of their innocence - not their works or some water sprinkled on their heads.

Do you know why the Romans hated the Christians? Among other things, because they were a public nuisance. Because whnever a fire broke out, the Roman firemen would fly to the spot and a horde of crazy Christians would try to stop them because it was a sign of the end of the world, the Christian's great obsession! Since the Romans weren't obsessed with the end of the world, they reasonably tried to exterminate these enemies of life. Sadly they didn't succeed.

That some misguided people believed in God doesn't invalidate Christianity any more than some bad cops invalidate the value of a police force; some irresponsible doctors do not invalidate the value of medical professionals. Following God doesn't make you perfect; you are still liable to make mistakes, errors in judgment. Being a Christian doesn't change our humanity. As well, that's a straw man argument - there is far more behind the Roman persecution of Christians than being a "nuisance."

"'Inter faeces et urinem nascimur" (we are born between the feces and the urine) - St. Augustine. That's the Christian view of Man: complete and utter scum. Contempt for us, contempt for our flesh, contempt for our world, contempt for our senses.

Do you note that you have to go so far back for your evidence? The medieval era is generally where those who wish to slam Christianity reside; for some reason, critics of Christianity won't come into the modern era - which I find very unfair; if I judged you only on the things you'd done in your youth (because the medieval church was a young church) you might not think that too fair now either.

If so many people, including very intelligent men, over a long span of time, have debated, distorted and reinterpreted the bible, chances are it's not such a useful thing after all. If A says it means black and B says it means white, the supposed guidance God gives is just a mess from beginning to start and we're better off doing away with it and finding something better.

Hamlet has not been made less relevant and powerful simply because it has been debated, distorted and reinterpreted. Language carries a lot of meaning inside it - and anybody who's studied literature and languages can tell you that the flexibility and ambiguities encoded into words can make interpretation a tricky thing. The Bible is quite valuable - that people have struggled over the centuries to understand it points to its continued relevance. As well, you use the example of opposites - I'd be interested in you providing two interpretations of a passage in the Bible that show a complete 180 degree opposition in terms of interpretation; and, even if you could, that argument is not true for the majority of the book. But either way, you're shifting ground - just because people cannot agree on what a very complex work of writing means, does not invalidate Christianity.

Suffice to say that, if Christianity hadn't curbed medical research during the middle ages, there probably wouldn't have been the Black Death that nearly wiped out Europe's population. But why bother healing the body when it's just vile matter and it's the soul that needs healing above all? The world can burn and rot so long as the immortal soul is safe.

OK - so you're bugged about the medieval period - but is that all you've got? Unless you can show that the errors of the young medieval church are consistent throughout history, then what you're really saying is that the 2000 year history of Christianity is completly invalidated by it's first 500 or so years (conveniently ignoring the fact that - even while science may have faltered - the church still did some good). As such, the correct form of your position is "The medieval church curbed science and intellect and did bad things." I might agree with that - but to generalize that out to all of Christian history (with zero examples outside of the medieval era) weakens the force of your argument.

[Heteronym]

Do you note that you have to go so far back for your evidence?

When arguing, one must come up with arguments to back up one's position. If mine are ancient, yours are non-existing. What arguments have you used rather than just saying, "it's not true"?

But do you want to leave the middles age? Do you want to talk about the Inquisition, which lasted until the 19th century? Do you want to talk about the Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and Hitler? The Catholic Church's support of European dictators like Franco and Salazar?

It's great that you have a pretty good relationship with your god, but sadly Christianity doesn't revolved around your caring, enlightened person. Over the centuries the Christian Church has been a well-documented force of evil, prejudice and anti-intellectualism, with one purpose in mind: to retain its power over men by hook or by crook.

[Redzeppelin]

When arguing, one must come up with arguments to back up one's position. If mine are ancient, yours are non-existing. What arguments have you used rather than just saying, "it's not true"?

What kind of "evidence" would you like? Do you need me to go find/document the countless community/charity actions that churches have taken through the years? Do you need me to cite examples of people's lives that were turned around through their involvement in Christianity? Most of the basis for my responses is predicated on my understanding of the Bible and Christian theology. Generally, those arguing from your position are convinced by no "evidence" that I could provide you. I have challenged your assertions by pointing out the flaws in the assumptions. One need not have "evidence" to point out faulty arguments.

But do you want to leave the middles age? Do you want to talk about the Inquisition, which lasted until the 19th century? Do you want to talk about the Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and Hitler? The Catholic Church's support of European dictators like Franco and Salazar?

Well, you won't find me defending Catholicism, so that's a dead end there; I'm well aware of the catalogue of sins you can amasse against Christianity; the only way your argument works is if you can show that men behave better without it; that Christians have behaved in misguided, inappropriate, atrocious ways does not mean that religion overall is a bad thing; nonetheless, I will be the first to admit that terrible things have been done in the name of God - and just as many terrible things have been done over the years in the name of money, real estate, philosophy, and the pursuit of power. The church should be better - yes; but what escapes the critics of religion is the reality that the world contains evil - and the believers are not immune to its influence. It would make sense - if one investigated Christian theology, for instance, that the Devil's primary target IS the church because it is God's earthly manifestation (or at least supposed to be) of his will. As such, the church has always been, and will continue to be, beset by problems - just as will humanity. Again, you pick out the worst, and ignore the best; that is fallacious arguing because it stacks the deck and ignores evidence to the contrary - evidence that shows that churches still do much good in this world.

It's great that you have a pretty good relationship with your god, but sadly Christianity doesn't revolved around your caring, enlightened person. Over the centuries the Christian Church has been a well-documented force of evil, prejudice and anti-intellectualism, with one purpose in mind: to retain its power over men by hook or by crook.

Religion misbehaves because people misbehave - not due to any inherent flaw in religion itself; the problems come from human beings, and removing religion from the equation will not change that one bit - in fact, without the moral code and requirements that we look out for our fellow man, I dare say that the world would be an emptier, more violent place. Atheist societies (post war Russian, China) reveal quite clearly the cost of eliminating religion.

[Redzeppelin]

PS - as well, "evidence" is a tricky thing because what you and I are arguing cannot be factually "proven." You have a list of examples of misbehavior by various religions - but the only way to "prove" your point would be to eliminate all of them and see if humanity was better off; that's not happening; as well, you make the unprovable assumption that humanity would be better off without them - but none of the atheist-based societies in existence today verify the idea that the elimination of religion improves society in any demonstrable way.

I understand the validity of backing up one's position with arguments, but mine are based in the Bible - and anybody knows that debate must take place on an equal field - the Bible only holds authority in a debate if both parties acknowledge its validity. Since you clearly see it as no authority, quoting it will do me no good because you'll simply attack its credibility.

Really, the attack against all religion in general is a flawed tactic that guys like Dawkins and Hitchens use, but it stacks the deck because it allows them to include fanciful "religions" such as Greek/Roman mythology with religions that still exist and currently practice today. There's a difference; really, such a wide attack is hard to refute because there are certain "religions" that are indefensible; by lumping them all together, you make yourself a comfy position - but it gets much harder once you begin to discriminate and have a narrower, more precise focus.