It concerns me because believing in angels and the like is so manifestly ridiculous. If people can believe that, and act on that belief, of what else are they capable? I think the claim that "belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives" is dubious at very best. Given the atrocities, intellectual and moral, that have been committed in the name of religion-and continue to be so-how on earth could you say such a thing with a straight face?
I'd like to point out that many of the most well-known "atrocious killers" - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - were not particularly religious, and were all
open promoters of atheism. Although there is evidence to say that Hitler was a Christian, there is also evidence otherwise, and Stalin is "worse" in terms of kill count. In fact, Stalin literally has the highest kill count
of any leader ever. Mao might actually be worse if you look at how many people died as the result of his policies.
And don't tell me that "they aren't real atheists", because I guarantee you that the Christians that committed the crusades and other acts of violence were not real Christians. I don't discount atheism because of the atrocities done by atheist leaders, neither should atheists discount religion for the atrocities done in its name. I think the claim that religion is bad due to all the atrocities done in its name is "dubious at best". In fact, I think it's complete bullshit.
And you say my claim about happiness is unfounded, but it's actually
well founded in research, and more than just one overblown study. This does nothing to prove or disprove religion of course.
Most of the charities I know of have probably been founded by white men. Are white men by nature more charitable than other people? Probably not. Even if the charity of many Christians is rooted in their Christianity, this hardly outweighs the evil done by religion as a whole. The Christian missionaries may be willing to go abroad and feed the hungry, but they would probably be quite happy, for example, for women of their own country to be compelled to give birth against their will, to medicalise homosexuality and to have erected a state better resembling a theocracy than secular government.
While I will admit that many Christians have some dumb political views, not all of them do. To be quite honest, many of the Christians that I know are liberals and couldn't give two shits as to whether or not gay marriage was legalized, and would actually fight against the mistreatment of homosexuals. I'm practically a socialist myself. Go look at
this topic that I started.
The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong, but most Christians I know don't judge homosexuals at all. The kindest people that I've met are religious, usually Christians. I once had a gay guy like me (romantically, I mean). I didn't care, and I'm still his friend, because I think he's an awesome dude. Truth be told, it probably would have been more awkward if a girl liked me who I didn't like. Most homosexual men I've met seem nicer than the straight ones anyway.
Going along with your "white men" point, I don't think that white men are more charitable than other races. But religious people honestly do seem more charitable than non-religious people. And I'm not just guessing here;
studies show that religious people are
significantly more charitable than non-religious ones. Although upon further research, some of my claims about
religious charities were wrong. At the same time, though, even in that article, the writer has very few statistics, and I do think that Christians' donations are inspired by their beliefs.
Also note that there are many Muslim charities, and I know Christian missionaries of many creeds and colors; Filipino, British, Chinese, Korean, American, German, South African, and more.
inb4 an interesting charity article somewhat supportive of atheists. Kind of:
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-do-religious-people-give-more-to.html
In addition, I find your indifference towards the truth of what people believe odd. Isn't it better to believe things that are true rather than false?
Not according to your worldview. Hell, I don't think that
anything should be considered objectively "better" or "worse" according to your worldview. I'm not saying that this makes your beliefs untrue, but if you want to be consistent with the logical progression of your worldview, than Mao and Stalin (and Hitler and Ghengis Kahn and the crusade leaders) did nothing wrong, objectively speaking.
On top of this, if you have decided for yourself, subjectively, that it is "better" to try and help people and improve others' lives as well as your own, false beliefs
might actually be better.
I'm not indifferent towards truth; I think that truth is very important. I'm just saying that according to your beliefs it really shouldn't mean anything.
As a final point, none of the thing I'm saying here are trying to prove or disprove any worldview. I'm just saying that none of your claims refute religion, and many are inconsistent with your beliefs or are outright false.