Your really beating this poor dead horse.

I doubt that 80% of this country is quite ready to accept the reality that they worship a poor dead horse. Until then, keep showing the public that they worship books that contain such useful moral guidelines as: “If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep” (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21)

If only this horse were dead. This horse is very alive and very distructive and needs to be beaten at every opportunity. Appoliges to the four legged horses.

I dislike the idea that you seem to assert, that religion is bad. (Calling it a bad reason to be good, calling it a dead/dying/wish it was dead horse) A common argument I hear by proud liberals is that religion has been the cause for violence, hatred and bigotry in the past, and that its teachings are out of date. I agree that many religions unfortunately fall under this umbrella. I disagree that as a result we should advocate atheism or agnosticism.

Of course even the most by-the-bible Christians won't stone their bride to death if she's not a virgin (disregarding the fact that Deuteronomy is Hebrew and not New Testament.) The truth is, religion must change with the times. I think you'll find that faith, properly practiced in order to be meaningful constructive and progressive in modern times, is a valuable and necessary guide for human morality.

I am a left-leaning moderate, and I don't follow my own religion as closely as I'd like to, but it pains me to see 90% of what I agree with (progressivism, socialism, peace and diplomacy over violence) mixed with 20% of what I disagree with (atheism, over-sexualization.)

atheism is not nihilism. perhaps people think it is because they think of atheism as a belief rather than a lack of a certain belief.

"The truth is, religion must change with the times. I think you'll find that faith, properly practiced in order to be meaningful constructive and progressive in modern times, is a valuable and necessary guide for human morality."

this makes no sense. if you let religion change and evolve, then you are no longer faithful, in that you no longer believe you are necessarily and absolutely correct. you can hope for religions to modernize and liberalize all you want, but its just not gonna happen while religions claim to own an absolute truth (or it will only happen through the religion ignoring its own creed, compromising its integrity, and this happens very slowly so people dont notice the contradictions). this is fundamental.

the pope (for example) is infallible, that means he cannot change his mind. the bible is infallible, that means it cannot be rewritten.

this is also why evidence has no effect on a creationist.

these problems stem from the hypothesis of an "absolute truth". religion is incredibly dangerous when it preaches absolutes, and if it didnt preach absolutes it would just be philosophy. absolutes cannot be updated, and they cannot be compromised when they conflict with other ideas (whether other religions or science). if they could be changed they wouldnt be absolute.

and isnt it depressing that the absolute was decided in the barbaric times that the bible was written?

Try again, religion is an artificial conscience for people who need one. Isn't atheism obviously more healthy, morally?

Excellent point about it being a lack of a belief rather than a belief, I got "monkeys typing" from Seth Lloyd's book, Programming the Universe, another one relevant to intelligent design beyond biology. Later I remembered the blog, I think

Also, lighten up!