Yes.  If people are believing things without evidence, then they absolutely should do what I'm doing, and not believe things without evidence.  100%. 

When organizations have specific doctines that instruct people to be shitty (for example endorsing slavery, rape, genocide, encouraging the death penalty for blashphemy or idol worship, etc.) we should certainly believe that the organization is a contributing factor.  When a particular type of organization is constantly associated with negative results, we should conclude that organization is likely detrimental.  Whenever any organization makes the claim that certain people are inherently more worthy than others (the chosen people, saved, etc) then we should be very wary of it.

Firstly, I never said you needed to pay 40% to build roads. What I was saying that you benefit from many services directly or indirectly and that some method of income redistribution is necessary for a society to function.   Again, do not tell me what I think.  And companies do build roads, with standards and oversights and collaborations. 

Now, your second comment is just beyond ridiculous.  I never said anything about monarchy.  The idea that you are calling me retarded for saying monarchies don't charge tax when I did not even mention monarchies implicitly or explicity is pretty funny.  Do you not know what anarchy is?

Edit:  Actually, I'd prefer you not respond, which I think would probably be better for you as well.  I love to discuss things with people, but not people who are going to pretend I said things I didn't and can't or are not trying to follow an argument, and flame me based on imaginary statements :)

I misread that. Yup, guess it's time to leave. Kids can be kids, no problem.

Isn't the problem how people use religion to justify their goals, not religion itself? The extremist, and fanatics are the people who would use their religion to hurt people, but religion itself teaches the opposite of that mind set.

..

I mean, yes, a government runs better without religious interference. That is common sense. However, I do not understand why we would push it any further than where it is now. There are hundred of donation organizations that abuse their free tax breaks in the same way that some religious organization do. And, many churches actually are very active in the community to improve it.

Also, why are we only looking at one side of things? Religions has been shown to help, as much as it hurts. It's easy to point to fanaticals and overzealous hypocrites, but what about the 98% of people who are religious followers who are moderates, and are normal people? Don't they find some fulfillment or comfort in something that may or may not exist?

I think the most damaging stigma for both sides is the belief that religion and science do not mix. When in reality, religion has been shown to both encourage and discourage scientific research. One is about understanding yourself, and the other is about understanding the world around us. Naturally at times they will buck heads, but both have been misinterpreted heavily.

I mean look at how Charles Darwin theory of evolution was blatantly disrespected by its followers. Creating the mindset of eugenics. Whereas religion picked it apart because it created a hole in their explanation of the world. Both sides completely abused it for their own purposes.

...

And just as it is ridiculous to ignore science, it is also ludicrous to ignore the impact that religion can have on people. Many of the mindsets we have today stems from religion. Especially the belief to respect others.

Religion might not provide a physical product, but it brings an emotional comfort. And, I think people have a very justified reason to believe in something that does not have scientific backing. I mean, we know the world is around 13.8 billion years old, and that an event like the big bang formed the world. It's also very possible there are multiple universes out there that we will never know about. There is also reasonable evidence to show we evolved from other species in the past.

However, in that same light, couldn't those same factors be the way we got here? Not necessarily the proof that a God doesn't exist? It seems like a God who could created the world would know the science behind the universe better than any of us (which is why I laugh when some people call miracles magic), and the sheer random chance of how we got here is mind boggling otherwise.

People will look at facts and come up with different interpretations. The problem is when we blame one side for not following the other side.

...

I think the real problem we need to address is how people use religion, or the media, to fulfill their own purposes. The same people who used religion to justify slavery or bombing a building, were the people making a profit off of slavery or fear. Instead of targeting religion which can be abused by people who claim to follow it, why not blame the people that disrespect it?


So in regards to the OP, No. government should not regulate religion. Instead, we need to stop the stigma that the two are completely incompatible and that someone who believes in religion should be discouraged from science, or vice versa.

yes the government doesn't need more taxes, yes we pay too much in taxes. However if we are going to pay taxes, then churches should as well.

Last comment because I really dont have time for this sort of thing right now.

You're trying to inject logic into faith. Like, why.

All organizations are associated with positive and negative things. Religion being constantly associated with negative things is a result of the media focusing on negative aspects because it makes for a better story.  Actual religious people that arent extremists see the slavery and genocide thing as tthe past to move away from. If everyone were being held accountable for the past we'd be justified in hating all white people but we certainly arent, just racists. Similarly, nothing is particularly wrong with different beleifs outside extremism.

I find any implication that the world would be better or worse off without religion to be ridiculous because it would likely be largely the same. People would find another reason to abuse power and the world would keep chugging theough space.

Isn't the problem how people use religion to justify their goals, not religion itself? The extremist, and fanatics are the people who would use their religion to hurt people, but religion itself teaches the opposite of that mind set.

No it does not.  The Abrahamic religions at least do not teach the opposite of hurting people.  The old testament states the hebrews are god's chosen people and have rights over others such as enslaving them and taking young virgins as war trophies.  Christianity teaches that those who do not believe in the religion are bound for hell.  Islam was founded by a warlord. 

Most people apply religion in a good peaceful way by picking out the love thy neighbor bits and taking out the enslave heathen from the slaves around you bit.

But, if we agreed that religion was fundamentally good but could be used for evil purposes, then if the evil it encourages outweighs the good we should strive to eliminate it. Yes?

Also, why are we only looking at one side of things? Religions has been shown to help, as much as it hurts. It's easy to point to fanaticals and overzealous hypocrites, but what about the 98% of people who are religious followers who are moderates, and are normal people? Don't they find some fulfillment or comfort in something that may or may not exist?

I don't think religion has been shown to help as much as it hurts.  Certainly something that could be discussed if you wish.  As for 98% being moderates, that depends on the time, the place, and religion.  98% of muslims in the arab world are certainly not moderate.

Most people are moderate, because people are generally good, or at least rational enough to not go around killing people. 

I think that the truth has value, and we should encourage people to believe the truth as much as possible. 

I think the most damaging stigma for both sides is the belief that religion and science do not mix. When in reality, religion has been shown to both encourage and discourage scientific research. One is about understanding yourself, and the other is about understanding the world around us. Naturally at times they will buck heads, but both have been misinterpreted heavily.

They do not mix.  Science requires you to believe what the evidence says.  Religion tells you to believe in certain doctrines regardless of evidence. 

I mean look at how Charles Darwin theory of evolution was blatantly disrespected by its followers. Creating the mindset of eugenics. Whereas religion picked it apart because it created a hole in their explanation of the world. Both sides completely abused it for their own purposes.

The difference is that the theory of evolution is true and purely descriptive.  The theory of evolution does not endorse any particular actions, and is not a guide to morality.  The bible specifically endorses slavery, violent homophobia, rape, and murder. 

And just as it is ridiculous to ignore science, it is also ludicrous to ignore the impact that religion can have on people. Many of the mindsets we have today stems from religion. Especially the belief to respect others.

Religion did not originate the idea of respecting others.  I would argue the Abrahamic religions do not teach that at all.  Even if they did, thinkers like confucious and Buddha figured it out before Jesus.

Religion might not provide a physical product, but it brings an emotional comfort. And, I think people have a very justified reason to believe in something that does not have scientific backing. I mean, we know the world is around 13.8 billion years old, and that an event like the big bang formed the world. It's also very possible there are multiple universes out there that we will never know about. There is also reasonable evidence to show we evolved from other species in the past.

The examples you give are all backed by evidence (although I'm not sure what the evidence for a multiverse is).  Why should we believe anything before there is evidence to support it?

However, in that same light, couldn't those same factors be the way we got here? Not necessarily the proof that a God doesn't exist? It seems like a God who could created the world would know the science behind the universe better than any of us (which is why I laugh when some people call miracles magic), and the sheer random chance of how we got here is mind boggling otherwise.

The big bang, evolution, and so on do not prove god doesn't exist.  They prove that the big bang and evolution happened.  They do not have anything to do with whether or not god exists.  Science deals with the natural not supernatural.

The reason I and many others do not believe in god is because the claim that there is a god is not supported by evidence.  If you'd like to think there is possibly a god, then fine.  If you want to make the claim that there is a god, he laid down certain rules, and we should force others to live by them... that's a problem.

So in regards to the OP, No. government should not regulate religion. Instead, we need to stop the stigma that the two are completely incompatible and that someone who believes in religion should be discouraged from science, or vice versa.

If a kid is beating someone to death with a baseball bat, do we blame the bat?  No.  But we still take the bat away so it can't be used to hurt anyone.  Unless there is a good reason to keep religion or not, we should be done with it.  Of course, that should not be the government's job.

There's no need to regulate religion. Just remove the special treatment - tax-free shouldn't be a given for a religious group, just because they're a religious group. They should also be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that any other company is subject to. Beyond that, existing laws should already take care of the real issues.

The only people who ever make these suggestions are people who don't have any knowledge of game theory.

Game theory demonstrates why, without some form of government, society would NOT be optimal at all. Even something as simple as two people making independent decisions can result in a worse result for both than if they coordinate. Look into Prisoner's Dilemma, and think about its implications for your viewpoint.

Also, if society were forced to operate on the basis of your idea, including the tax argument, the result would be that roads would only go as far as the company that is building it wants it to go, schools and hospitals would only be built in rich areas, and the entire country would be overrun by those who envy its resources, as there would be no army to defend it. The poor would be locked into a downward spiral, there would be no form of public transport (meaning that only those who could afford cars would be able to travel), the majority of the public would be living without safe drinking water or any form of power, and there would be no publicly-available, free resources where people could learn things (libraries). Those are just a few of the problems with your idea.

Of course, your idea will never happen, anyway. Any attempt to implement it will necessarily fail, for the same reason as why attempts to implement communism inevitably fail. It is inherently unstable, as "no government" very quickly turns into "dictatorship".

No, I do not believe in god nor I subscribe to any religion but this is what I think

1. "Taxes - how much do governments lose to religion?"

They should pay the same taxes everyone else does. I know that in many countries churches have benefits in taxing, and that should not happen. No benefits, no extra charges

2. "Cults should not be allowed to get as bad as some do. "

You cannot regulate them in a special way, you should just apply prohibitions that every human act has in a legal system. No problem with the cult unless they start killing, robbing, etc... be them christian, muslims or jews

3. "Religious extremist - causing wars, terrorism, hate crimes, etc"

Same as above, legal systems should not treat with religion as a cause but with the effects (wars, terrorism or stuff like that being controled not because it comes from religion, but because it is war and terrorism)

4. "Intolerance - how many more humans needs to suffer due to religious "morals"?"

Morality is a catchy thing, I find it dangerous that governments start regulating heavily in this department. That is because any moral code has a good side that will benefit some acts and a bad side that will punish othersin a phisical or psicological way. I think individual or collective moral codes should ideally not apply in a coercive way on any other individual.

What I think is that some people are allowed to think and say they hate a special type of person without censorship, but they should not be allowed to show violence to that type of person

You're trying to inject logic into faith. Like, why.

Why?  Why wouldn't I?  Why should we use logic in every aspect of our life, but we throw it out for this particular aspect of life, which some people think their whole life should be based on?  Is logic valuable or not?  If it is, then we can't just chuck it out because some people may not like what it tells us.

All organizations are associated with positive and negative things. Religion being constantly associated with negative things is a result of the media focusing on negative aspects because it makes for a better story.  Actual religious people that arent extremists see the slavery and genocide thing as tthe past to move away from. If everyone were being held accountable for the past we'd be justified in hating all white people but we certainly arent, just racists. Similarly, nothing is particularly wrong with different beleifs outside extremism.

Yes, all organizations have positive and negative things.  When the negatives outweigh the positves, you get rid of it.  The news is not just focusing on the negatives.  The news, in the US, is mostly composed of religious people.

Slavery and genocide are in the bible as commandments from god.  Most people have moved away from it because people are generally good, but it's still there.  It's there as a command from an unchanging god.  God never recanted his opinion.  There is no bible 2.0 to fix this and the many other issues.  

There is something wrong with any belief regarding truth that is not backed by reason and evidence.  

I find any implication that the world would be better or worse off without religion to be ridiculous because it would likely be largely the same. People would find another reason to abuse power and the world would keep chugging theough space.

There are certainly other tools that can be used to manipulate people.  Few have done so as consistently and as well as religion.  Would getting rid of religion cure every problem in the world?  No.  But it would leave those who would manipulate and deceive one less too to do it with.  It would be progress.