-Hold your horses there kiddo(Hehe, kiddo...), I think any religion that has a heaven and hell in it is abusive to children so that will include mormonism. Just thought I'd clarify that. And all others are neglent. Wait, let me make this as clear as possible; teaching absolutism and dogma(Especially without justification) is neglent, doing so using threats is abuse(No matter how benign the threat). I'm not yet quite happy with this definition, might fix it a little bit if possible.

EDIT: Shutting up now, though I do love a derail...

Setting all talk of religion aside, and lets pretend it doesn't exist.  Does that then take away your notion that discussion need be held as it was in "So...", or in Konrads thread? 

Lets say I want to talk about evoulution.  I might say (this is only a for instance), that Dinosaurs evolved into birds.  You might disagree.  But you only have fossil records to support your claims.  "You can't possibly know for sure because all you have is a pile of bones that aren't even bones anymore and a bunch of silly theories!"  I believe that so firmly that no matter what you say your wrong. I say "Even your facts are biased to your opinion and your stupid for believing them".  "Your abusing or atleast neglecting your Children by teaching them dinosaurs were killed off by a comet!"  How would that play out with you?  How would you see my side of the discussion?

Point is no matter how "stupid"we might feel someones beliefs and arguments are, we do owe some level of respect as they are also Human.  If I'm not shown respect, I will not show any.  You would expect that wouldn't you?  No one asked, I believe, for you to change your beliefs or convictions.  Just to stop attacking that which don't fully grasp.  You say you do.  But you don't display that.

There is wisdom in allowing others their paths.  Quoting Locus, "Live and let live."  If something bad arises out of religion then by all means we should attack it.  But attacking religion for being religion without attacking everything else in this world that gives rise to bad, and bringing those things into discussion, negates the point, doesn't it?

In discussing things between ourselves here on 1bc, we should be mindful that we are friends and not enemies.  And no one here is "Stupid".  Just different ideals and thoughts.  I don't agree with all you say, but niether do I disagree with your points.  You are intittled do whatever you feel you must to save the world.  And I applaude your attempts. 

 -You don't understand much do you? And could you please be more specific?

Well that explains a lot. So through talking with a lot of de-converts and atheists, you've reached the conclusion that the best way to combat the badness of religion is to preach about the badness of religion? The best way to "cure"people of their stupid religious superstitions is to tell them their stupid for having religious superstitions? You also seem to have concluded that the best way to convince people that they should not rely on empirically uncorroborable principles of faith is to simply tell them to their faces and in no uncertain terms "Your stupid cause you don't even know the difference between an empirically corroborable piece of evidence and a uncorroborable one?"

You're certainly free to engage with others in that way, and there is a certain kind of logic to justifying it on the basis that the religious bliss of a few is founded on the backs of dead millions. It is true that millions have died in conflicts and violence in which religion was a major factor that motivated the violence.

Certainly there is nothing particularly technically rhetorically wrong in your style, which I'd label as a sort of machine gun, or steam roller style. Overall, I cannot disagree with your basic points. But I do disagree that you are making such a big deal out of it, and doing so, evidently based on nothing more than principle. After all, how much negative impact has religion actually had in YOUR life? Has anyone you know or love died or suffered as a result of religion? Has anyone in your entire NATION recently suffered as a result of religion? If you think the answer to that is yes, then perhaps more details might reveal why it is that you adopt such a dogmatic, disagreeable, and unfriendly rhetorical style when you discuss religion. On the other hand, I can very quickly list off half-dozen people whom I know personally, for whom religion is apparently a very satisfying, and redeeming element in their lives. In fact their are millions of people for whom religion is a centerpiece of happiness. In many nations, people who are faithful followers of a religion are known to derive considerable (epidemiological) health benefits and protection from their fantasies.

The point here is not whether agnostics, athiests, buddhists, or religious zealots in general are more or less happy, get divorced more or less often, or can otherwise be attributed as being better or worse than people of other beliefs. The point is that, they are ALL free to believe how they choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You may disagree with religion in general, but how exactly do the existence of other people's religious beliefs infringe on your right, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?