At a horrible price

Not unless the after life has "Hot chicks for the infidel killers!!!XXX"

We're using a lot of past tense here.

had, was useful, have been are all indicators that something is past. Not only past, but long gone.

I submit that just because something worked for a past civilization does not mean that it will work for future ones. Why? In my opinion that is because we are constantly developing what was working and disregarding what wasn't. I believe THAT is the difference.

I would direct your attention to the 'intelligent design' debate and religion's most recent attempts to curtail scientific research. Those two things alone are enough to convince me of the harmful intent of religion.

However, I'd like to also point out that the most horrific and widely publicized crimes concerning children and innocents have been enacted by the insane adherents of religions. Do you really think that if an atheist had committed one of these atrocities then we in the non-religious community wouldn't hear about it every friggin' day?

For a pictographic representation of what religion looks like to some of us, I would like you to visit this thread posted by MattShizzle a while back:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/why_i_hate_religion

There are more reasons. If you feel that these are still not enough then I have more. 

Belief in a god on it's own is not something worth arguing. It's when beliefs cause conflicts that affect others that it becomes a concern. So when theists organize into religions, it does become a concern to anyone not a part of that religion. Which wouldn't be a problem if there was only one religion. But there isn't.

I meant that for the most part religions seemed to stay confined to the boundries of their respective civilizations.  For example, the Greek gods never really left Greece, and the faith in the Egyptian gods never blossomed anywhere else besides Egypt.  Christianity, however, within about 1000 years(maybe a bit longer) was found in multiple nations.  That is to say, Italy had it, France had it, England had it, etc. 

I would also like to restate that religions ARE integral parts of civilizations.  If I were to ask a elementary-school kid what he knew about Egypt, one of the first things he would mention are pyramids, which were intertwined with Egyptian religion and culture.  I believe that this is true with almost all civilizations.

So let me refrase my question.  Take an ancient civilization, or a modern one(not America), and take away all religion from it.  Does the civilization become stronger?  Is its infinstructure become stronger, does it people work harder, will they survive longer in war, etc. 

I agree with you here. I was originally trying to point out that until Christianity, most religions were localized. What Christianity did that no other religion had before was that it seperated from its founding civilization and became its own entity, otherwise known as the Church.

1. The Lion King is one of the best movies ever.

2. Sure, a civilization can exist without religion, but for how long? I believe religion is needed to keep empires strong. Religion creates order, or at least a sense of structure, and civilizations need this to survive.

Let me mull on that one for awhile. An idea is forming in the back of my head but its too tired to come out and play.

"Not until the rise of Christianity did religion start unifying to cover many areas. When you look at every ancient civilization, they each had their own unique religeon(with the notable exception of the Romans, who stole their religeon from the Greeks) which fit their environment."

And the Greeks from the Mesopotamians, and the Christians from everyone. There are very few occurances in the bible which had not been done by those mythologies that came before it.

"Religeon does have its benefits."

Yes, opiate for the masses.

"The knowledge that there is a greater being would have a calming effect on a populace."

Calming to the point of the individual being able to rationalize to themselves that others of conflicting views or of a different race are less than human. Therefore killing them isn't a "sin", it's gods work.

"A religeon also keeps a civilization in line with a "divinly inspired" code of laws."

Al Qeda, anyone? Or how about the Inquisition, that was a good one. Or what about the Crusades, those were deffintely people who were following "divinely inspired" codes.

"We also cannot ignore the political aspects of a religeon."

Like the 700 club financing presidential campaigns to further their own aggenda?

"Not only does it keep the ruler, chosen by the gods, in power, but can also be used to incite a population into war against "heathens"(see the Crusades)."

Because rulers who think they were chosen by god have historically been very fair rulers as a whole, haven't they? War against heathens? Are you kidding me? We're in one of those right now, and we're the "heathens", or as Islam likes to call us "infidels". This argument couldn't be more ignorant, uneducated, arrogant, narrow minded, irrational, or self serving, unless you admitted to burning "heathens" in your back yard to save their souls! Furthermore, anyone who sees the Crusades as a possitive thing would probably (if they lived in Nazi Germany) have fallen in line with Hitlers brainwashing tactics and pledged to spread the "Master Race"! I really see no more repulsive and deplorable reason to kill another human being than that spawned from blindfolded faith in what ever your "cuase" is! Shame on you for even considering this a viable argument!

"So I know that many of you find religeon foolish and irrational for the individual, and I will not contest that point right now, but is religeon just as foolish for a civilization?"

Even more!!!

1.  Its heathen, not heather.  Unless you mean burning specifically named women.

2.   I'm a he, not a she.

3.  I am not simply talking about Christianity.  I am simply stating that a succesful civilization MUST have a religion that takes a major role in society.  My proof for such a claim?  Not one succesful civilization in, say, the past 5 millinia has gone without a religion that backed it up.  Now if someone can refute that claim with PROOF, I will concede the point.  But until then, I will stand firm on this.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with point 3.  Religion is nothing more than an organized structure of belief.  There are many such structured organizations outside the realm of religion where people hold to beliefs.  One of the main reasons that it works so well is because of fear.  Fear is being used to control the actions of others.  Governments use this tactic as well.  Why religions are drawing the brunt of the attack is beyond my understanding but there it is.

Religions instill a sense of awe and fear.  Christianity is notorious of them all.  One religion that I do not believe does that is Taoism.  Taoism leaves it up to the individual to draw their own conclusion.  I think that is why I find myself so drawn to it.  Taoism is the exception rather than the norm and that is why it is so intriguing.

 Fear to the Taoist is what sin is to the Christian.

To answer your original question:

Theism is not bad.  It is not bad at all and can be quite comforting to a lot of people.  It's when the idea is twisted and contorted and individuals will use the power of fear to achieve what they want at the expense of others.

woops missed it.  I disagree with xaminations point number 3, not the other individual.

I mean any civilization that was able to thrive without religion. If a civilization gets rid of religion, and collapses within the next 100-200 years, it obviously did not do well without it. I want an example that was either founded without religion and did well without one, or a civilization that got rid of religion and either stayed about the same or became healthier.

Vessel, all civilizations collapse.  It's unavoidable.  I'm just pointing out that all moderatly-great civilizations had a religion that went along with it. 

China.  China had Taoism before it ever became a religion.  There are a lot of religions that have stemmed from the philosophy of Taoism.  Taoism philosophy was first, the religions are branches.  The chinese adhered to the philosophy for many years before the religion was established.

In its inception, the Buddhism founded by Prince Gautama was a political religion whose purpose was to counter the prevalent political religion of Hinduism, caste system and all.

 I never met a religion that wasn't political--Buddhism is no different.

The best constructed fictions are based on figments of fact with bits of astonishment via bits of the fantastic mixed in.

Religion is no different a work of fiction; some religions do produce that which is beneficial, such as mental disciplines espoused by Buddhism and the loving care of one's environment espoused by numerous Native American religions.

I am always interested in attending Church of Christ services because of their nonsensical tenet which prohibits musical instruments during services--as a result, they've become quite specialized in producing the most exquisite acapella arrangements.

However, none of the perceived benefits outweigh the FACT that it's all the result of a dangerous fiction whose purpose is to sell you the idea of afterlife rewards provided that you part with what's yours for the good of the empire in THIS life.

It's true that no empire has been able to maintain itself without religion--but it's ALSO true that no empire has been able to maintain itself without a slave class. Another function of religion is to maintain pecking order as some sort of God-ordained lot in life.

This was, after all, the original Prime Directive of converting our African imports during our slavery era. An unintended consequence of that was that slaves embraced the story of Moses as firmly as they did.

This response is a statement that is not true. Whereas it IS true that religion establishes tribalism, religion ALSO spread beyond the borders of the tribe via trade routes, and some tenets of religions found abroad were adopted and some locally produced tenets eventually became rejected over time. The fate of Queen Nefertiti stands as prominent testimony of that, but she's not the lone example.  Another prominent example is the very Koreish tribe that Mohammed et al set himself against.  The Koreish adopted much theology that came in from the orient and Mohammed had a problem with that--and yet in order to proliferate his religion, Mohammed himself adopted some aspects that weren't original, especially when he was about the business of converting Jews. 

Romans didn't adopt Greek religion as such--Rome had a long track record of co-opting the religions of the peoples it conquered for the purpose of being recognized with a divine right to rule, and Greek religion isn't the only religion Rome co-opted for this purpose, and Christianity was one of 'em. It's why Christianity, post-Constantine, is remarkably Mithraic as well as marginally Gnostic. 

Ah.. I see what you mean. I was just making sure you were not expanding the idea of an empire to modern day countries or civilizations. Some people would use this term and apply it to things such as.. the US.. Russia.. or any state for that matter which wars.

But yes.. in the classical sense.. I understand what you mean.

___

 I am still interested in your reponses to my contentions however.. not in order to prove you wrong.. just.. as to not use such colorful wording within the context of what is supposed to be a rational debate.

All in kindness though. 

1) Name me one element of christianity that you believe is unique, and I did not say there was a previous faith that was identicle.  I just wanted to point out that all of the elements were borrowed and pasted together like a collage.

2) Yes, it is inherently opiate for the masses.  No, it doesn't inherently lead to the burning of heathens, I was using that as a simily and exageration to illustrate how preposterous i found the argument, and yes it is irrational.   I am using the opiate reference as a metaphor, btw, not to suggest your all like drug users.