I wonder if the employers would be so accommodating if he were refusing to drive buses with advertisements for fast food or a TV show he finds obnoxious.

And from the other thread:
“b) there is part of me with a purpose that transcends my physical health so I'm just going to lie here and die. If given the opportunity, I will give the gift of such transcendent purpose to that cutie over there by having unprotected sex. If god doesn't want her to die, he'll protect her. If he doesn't, she's just experiencing her purpose. Oh the joy of giving that to her.”

Alex, isn’t it a weak way to make your case to make absurd strawman arguments that you yourself say are not plausible?

Why do you present Elle Mc Pherson as the absurd alternative to no afterlife when you know there are other plausible belief systems such as karma and reincarnation that reflect the cycles seen observed by science in nature and present a rich and compelling understanding of the universe for millions of people?

And in my African AIDS example, why do you use the unlikely example of a moral idiot-philanderer to represent the religious guy when you know that religious people are more likely to be monogamous; and it turns out that the religious practice of circumcision is now being recommended by health officials for adults to combat AIDS?

Um - I think there are lots of religions that allow polygamy - are you perhaps talking about "marital fidelity" - or by religion do you mean contemporary Christian?

Yes, marital fidelity. Less chance of AIDS if you have one or several wives, vs. more promiscuous secular outlook. Since we are talking about Africa, the religion would probably be Anglican or Catholic, but it could be a tribal religion that is polygamous as you say, and my point would be the same: mongamy as opposed to promiscuity, not polygamy.

As you can see, I am arguing for good religion in general vs. secularism. I am not a fan of the emphasis on exclusivity that you point out. Having said that, of all of them I prefer the JC system as compared to the other 5 previously listed for the reasons I outlined.

I'm not particularly religious, and yet I manage to remain monogamous. I think I have a less difficult time doing so than many of my religious friends, several who are on their second and third marriages.

I can't help but think of men like Swaggert, Haggard, Bakker and their ilk (not to mention untold number of priests...) when I'm told that religion keeps people on the straight and narrow. Bull****. Personal ethics, mores, whatever you want to call it- maybe even down to a genetic level- are what make people who they are. Religion can influence ones morals, but ultimately their innate self will win out if that's the ONLY reason they can find to 'behave'.

I guess I'm stuck on the concept of "good" religion - that sort of gets stuck in a circular argument when each religion defines what's "good" making itself defacto good.

It seems for you to even evaluate the morality or "goodness" of competing religions, you have to appeal to something outside the religious structure, using a non-theistic criteria like utilitarianism.

Now if you are saying that all religions are "good" that's one thing, but you seem to regard highly the "utility" of a good religion to motivate and respond to the fear of presumably "bad" religions defeating the "good."

But then again perhaps the "bad" religion defeating the "good"/our prefered religion is okay, becasue that's merely carrying out God's will and we will be consoled we convert and forgive the rape and murder of our heathen misguided wives and children.

I wasn't aware that any particular anti-viral transsubstantiation occurred during circumcision.

Odd use of the word plausible.

That's my point with the absurd examples. To me, they are equally absurd as what your so-called "good religions" have come up with. And you seem to be arguing (though I must admit I'm exactly committing each post to permanent memory) that regardless of the reality of the facts behind teh beliefs it is valuable to hold the beliefs because it makes the trodden masses behave better and gives them reason to pretend their lives don't suck as badly as it would appear.

My point is that disregarding the fact that I consider this stupid, if that is what is important, then why is it these particular unfounded beliefs that must be the ones providing those services as opposed to the equally unfounded beliefs that result in me expecting to see Elle MacPherson naked in my living room. I assure you that would be more effective behavior control (for me anyway, perhaps Cheryl Tiegs would be better for you but that is why I'd offer up a pantheon) than getting wings and a harp when I'm dead.

You don't seem to view religion as an honest organic belief but rather a tool such that even if people don't believe it on their own someone should lead them there. I to belief that is what religion is. I just think that regardless of whether the tool produces good things, it is a malignancy. Kind of like sandpaper.