Being the only non-antithiest on this site, I try to keep everyone at arms lengths. I can imagine them thinking "he not only a non-atheist, he's a non-antitheist!" So I try to avoid talking about politics and religion, and I basically don't trust any one here to have a civil conversation.

Well...

*ahem*

pretty sure you're not the only theist on mb.

This is not an argument. This is two unsupported statements with no logical substance, and while I could argue against it, why bother when you're not going to respond with anything that would make it worth my time and effort?

I'm starting to wonder if it might be our old pal Dirty.

Never got that vibe at all.

I didn't say it was the root of evil. As an atheist that would be pretty dumb, since anything "good" or "evil" would be the result of people and their actions and beliefs, including relgion. But both the best and the worst parts of humankind are expressed through religion to the Nth degree, and since religion is an excellent way for people to justify their own preconceived notions (especially those preconceived notions implanted in them by religion) then religion is brilliant at magnifying violence and intolerance (and peace and tolerance when people can be arsed).

Like, I don't think that religion invented homophobia. I think that evolutionary psychology can put forth some good justifications for homophobia. Alpha males are supposed to be the strongest Y chromosome on the block, but if that alpha male takes control of a pack/herd/etc but has no interest in mating with all the females he has just taken control of then that is not desirable. Or if a male/female gay animal that puts itself outside the breeding paradigm shows stereotypical signs of the gender that it isn't then it might put negative associations in the minds of its species (even though not all gay animals would show these traits).

But whatever homophobic tendencies that might evolve in a species would then be expressed in that species' religion, where it then becomes codified and moral, as opposed to simply being instinctual. And is then an influence long after that species' culture has evolved past the point at which that instinct became written down, which gives weight to that instinct even though there may be no other rational justification.

Yes, but Christianity (and any number of other religions) has given a MASSIVE weight to the opinions of cultural plebes who raised and ****ed sheep for a living that is completely illogical when you take into account that these people did not even survive long enough to know what AOL was. The opinions of the people who wrote the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, etc-many-non-Abrahamic-religious-books, would have as much direct weight as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on modern humans (none) if they were not considered religious. But since they are religious, they get to have their opinions cared about for no apparent reason and therefore Adam and Steve.

I really don't care what the individual religious people believe. You're still purposefully ignoring the bigger picture because if you include it your argument falls apart. Funny how you accuse Anteater of it and then do the same exact thing..