I've changed a lot.

[B1g_crunch]

At first I absolutely detested religion, bordering on actually protesting against it, butover time I've learned to tolerate religion. People make their choices, and I've seen the best (and worst) of both sides, theist or atheist. It doesn't mean I won't crack a joke now and again about something religious, but I can deal with the lifestyles of others.

For those who are a bit more "No, religion is a blight against humanity. It must be stopped." Try reading this, all of it, and THEN come back and give an opinion.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

It is a bit more complex than simply a hatred of, or intolerance toward religion, for most people. For anyone that actually thinks about it, it is a question of truth. The religious want to spread their message and convert people in order to save their eternal soul or whatever. Atheists, that is, the ones with a spine who don't whinge about 'shoving beliefs down people's throats,' usually believe that having a materialist worldview is beneficial in this life, and that this life is what matters, as there is no hereafter.

In other words, you have people with contradictory understandings of what is best for people. Now, ignoring petty complaints about "who are you to say what's best for me?" (the answer, obviously, is 'someone who knows what's best for you') we must look at this seriously. We have people who know what's best for people. They may or may not have a cure for all the worlds ills, but they do have something that they expect will make you a better person or whatever. How do we deal with this?

PICK A SIDE AND BEAT THE s**t OUT OF THE OPPOSITIONUNTIL THEY DROP!

That was not sarcasm, that is me being perfectly honest. What everyone needs to do is find out what they think is best for the world, and not compromise in achieving that.

Now, for me, as a communist, my position on religion is neatly summed up by a quote from Marx (gasp!)

Marx

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

What Marx is saying here is that religion is an expression that the world sucks. Religion serves a number of social rolls to do with that suckyness:

It offers an explanation of the suckyness .
It offers a real-time distraction from the suckyness.
It offers a programme to alleviate and deal with the sucky.

So, if you eliminate the material need for religion, if you make the world less sucky, then less people will turn to religion.

This is the communist understanding. Banning religion isn't only wrong, but stupid, as it creates sympathy. What communists want is to eliminate the social need for it and to leave it up to private citizens to do their own thing if they so choose.

/rant  

[Lethkhar]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

It is a bit more complex than simply a hatred of, or intolerance toward religion, for most people. For anyone that actually thinks about it, it is a question of truth. The religious want to spread their message and convert people in order to save their eternal soul or whatever. Atheists, that is, the ones with a spine who don't whinge about 'shoving beliefs down people's throats,' usually believe that having a materialist worldview is beneficial in this life, and that this life is what matters, as there is no hereafter.

In other words, you have people with contradictory understandings of what is best for people. Now, ignoring petty complaints about "who are you to say what's best for me?" (the answer, obviously, is 'someone who knows what's best for you') we must look at this seriously. We have people who know what's best for people. They may or may not have a cure for all the worlds ills, but they do have something that they expect will make you a better person or whatever. How do we deal with this?

PICK A SIDE AND BEAT THE s**t OUT OF THE OPPOSITIONUNTIL THEY DROP!

That was not sarcasm, that is me being perfectly honest. What everyone needs to do is find out what they think is best for the world, and not compromise in achieving that.

Now, for me, as a communist, my position on religion is neatly summed up by a quote from Marx (gasp!)

Marx

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

What Marx is saying here is that religion is an expression that the world sucks. Religion serves a number of social rolls to do with that suckyness:

It offers an explanation of the suckyness .
It offers a real-time distraction from the suckyness.
It offers a programme to alleviate and deal with the sucky.

So, if you eliminate the material need for religion, if you make the world less sucky, then less people will turn to religion.

This is the communist understanding. Banning religion isn't only wrong, but stupid, as it creates sympathy. What communists want is to eliminate the social need for it and to leave it up to private citizens to do their own thing if they so choose.

/rant

This is a good point. It's common knowledge that if we found a way to prevent death entirely, most religions would be pretty much gone after 100 years or so.  

[Lethkhar]

To be honest, it's the exact opposite for me. When I first became an atheist, I was pretty open to other worldviews and didn't feel the need to criticize anyone.

I'm still a very open-minded person, but to be honest the more I saw of the persecution of atheists on the part of so many otherwise innocent theists, the less tolerant I became of it. There are so bad things that happen solely for religious purposes that I'm really looking forward to the day when no one will have to put up with the strife religion causes.

I wish we treated all religions like we treat the ancient mythologies; as stories useful for allusion and study in literature or culture, nothing more.  

[Captain_Shinzo]

You know...I was different before joining this guild as well...
At first, I thought a couple of things.
Like, I didn't respect religion what-so-ever and detested the thought of not knowing something well enough.
However, this guild has taught me that religion, even against our universal views and everything we believe in, isn't really something that needs to be destroyed.
I mean, people say that religion kills but it is more of the people of the religion. More harm will be caused when religion is gone I suspect.

As for the other thing I listed, I use to HATE not knowing something.
Any topic I wasn't familiar with made me iffy and detest myself for awhile.
But, now I know that NOT knowing some things are actually good. Opens up room to learn, I guess...  

[Lord Maxdom]

In some ways I feel that religion is needed, because a good deal of humans can not act good unless they feel that something can punish them for their actions. And when I was younger I too was very critical of religions, but over time after studying them more and talking with people of the many different groups, I grew to love the study of religions. And I now realize they are people, just like any atheist. We think differently, but we're still people. I almost find it funny, I've met more atheists that I didn't like than I've met theists, I have friends who are christian who feel the same way about the people in their church. After so much time, I just feel that we need to not focus on the group, but individual ideas and morals when finding out who we like or don't. I don't like to judge, but it is human nature, you feel a person is this or that way no matter how hard you try not to. Simply once you hear a person is of a religion, it doesn't mean they are like others. Most atheists in my opinion just want to pick fights, but those are the loudest atheists. The ones that are good, in my own opinion, are those who simply happen to be atheistic, and focus more on what is important in life to them, than of what other believe in their own communities.  

[LimeIzMyFaveColor]

I've always been open-minded with other religions. According to someone, I have an extreme open-mindedness. I sort of have that unitarian universalist mindset that everyone has their own path. If they are christian, let them be Christians. It's not an atheist's job to pull them onto the side of atheism, because that's HYPOCRISY.