Why Atheism?

[naomi24]

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov

[vetuste_ennemi]

"The sangha, monastic brotherhood,"
This is your example of spiritual community, then, Khandro, a group of monks? I hadn't expected you to be so literal.
So, religion: Teacher, Teaching and Community. I can understand why this at a particular time and place and for a particular group can be good in strengthening the bonds among people. But supposing there are two groups, whose teachers mutually claim that the other's teachings are blasphemous/sinful/contrary to the natural order or whatever? Then T1 remains good for G1, and T2 for G2, but neither T1 nor T2 can be good for both groups, can they? In fact religion by your definition, but in this context, would be a bad thing - a promoter of division, a contributor to strife, and (to use you word) a denial of our shared humanity.
Do watch Scruton. You didn't expect him to be an Islamophobe, did you?

[Khandro]

v_e; "Islamophobe"! I think he would give you short shrift for that accusation, he gives a fair critique of problems but his understanding goes beyond bigotry, (I have just incidentally read his book on Spinoza - a Jew.)
Regarding your atheist lack of groups 1,2, and 3. I suppose to be fair you have 1, the teacher; Richard (clown) Dawkins. 2 The teaching; Neo Darwinism. and 3, Well, I'd better not say it in case children are listening, but just look around at your cohort.

[naomi24]

Who's his cohort?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Freedom of thought is more easily lost than won". (Imprecisely expressed, but I know what you mean, Mr. Scruton.)
How can you read stuff like this and at the same time defend the bully boys, Khandro?

[Khandro]

v_e; //How can you read stuff like this and at the same time defend the bully boys...?// Which and who?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Generically any "religion" which asserts that it alone has the answer, that people who deny its claims are by that very fact sinful, and that arrogates to itself the right, indeed the duty, to impose its views on the unbelievers and punish them for criticism and dissent.
I can't think of any specific examples at the moment. I will leave that as an exercise for the interested reader.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Bully: to intimidate, to coerce. Maybe you can come up with some recent examples yourself.
People who react to criticism and ridicule by picking up the sword are barbarous. The fact that they choose violence (or the threat of it) constitutes a powerful argument against both the truth and the morality their "faith".

[Khandro]

v_e; Your post of 14:58 appears to addressed specifically to me "read[ing] stuff like this and at the same time defend[ing] the bully boys". If so, I ask again, what am I reading, and who am I defending?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Freedom of thought is more easily lost than won". That Khandro?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be obscure. it's on page 1 of a book called The Great Philosophers: Spinoza, written by Roger Scruton. Just downloaded it on to my Kindle. I thought you'd read it. What you're defending are religions which are by their very nature intolerant and divisive. I'm not talking about those religions about which I know nothing, like Buddhism; I'm speaking about those religions about which I know a lot.
As usual I failed totally to make my case when I tried to point out that the virtues which you attribute to "religion" are irredeemably flawed when their prescriptions have been written by people like Moses, Saul of Tarsus and Mohammed. These "great" religions are in their unmediated states tribal superstitions which are hostile to the principles of "community" which you rightly praise. Such a principle should be inclusive, not exclusive. It should embrace the whole of mankind, not a slavish and ignorant subset of it.
I use the word unmediated, because, Judaism and Christianity have to a large extent abandoned the tribal rubbish. Thus far Islam has been less successful in binning its garbage.

[Khandro]

v_e; //Thus far Islam has been less successful in binning its garbage.// With this I concur completely, and I think Scruton made an interesting point about how regrettable it was that with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of Turkey that Islam didn't have Istanbul as its spiritual centre and was more or less hijacked by the camel-drivers (my words not Scruton's).
I still don't know what is meant by defending bullies, though you cannot dismiss an entire religion because of the misinterpretation of it by the few, a serious mistake made yesterday by Prince Charles. ISIS has been condemned by al Qaida, The Muslim Brotherhood and has had fatwas placed on it by Senior Sunni and Muslim clerics, pus all normal moderate Muslims, a fact which seems to have escaped him.

I think you may warm to Spinoza.

[mibn2cweus]

Any ideology which is not held by any standard to conform to or be based on reality, (no less one that attempts to rewrite reality to conform to its own arbitrary whims) can be interpreted in pretty much any way one damn well pleases. Religion is a debate over what 'God' said, based on the presumption that there is a 'God' who said anything at all. What someone or group prefers to believe never made it so.

[naomi24]

Amen to that^.

[Khandro]

mibn..; A rather meaningless post, (unsurprisingly approved). First, please define "reality", and if you believe that religion is "a debate over what 'God' said", then it would appear that you have little understanding of the subject.

[naomi24]

Khandro, since you are the critic it's incumbent upon you to illustrate the error in Mibs' post.

[beso]

Khandro
//and if you believe that religion is "a debate over what 'God' said", then it would appear that you have little understanding of the subject.//

Khandro is correct here. Religion is about what God said. No debate required.

[Insert your sect name here] has the only correct interpretation.

[mibn2cweus]

Perhaps, "No debate allowed." would have been closer to the mark.

[naomi24]

I assume beso meant 'mibn2cweus is correct here'.

[Khandro]

v_e; //"Freedom of thought is more easily lost than won".// Is that yours?
it's good, but what RS says, at least in my version (I don't have a candle [or even a kindle] :) "the adoption of truth as one's master and one's goal - is neither easily undertaken, nor readily understood by those who refuse it".
Cheers Benedict!

[naomi24]

Mibs, I think he's ignoring us. Perhaps he's decided his criticism isn't valid after all.

[mibn2cweus]

Being ignored in R&S, it would seem, leaves me in good company. ;o)