Kind of a broad statement wouldnt you say? Have you ever actually read the bible? It's always intriguing that the harshest, most sarcastic and caustic critics have never actually read it...
Most of the atheists I know have read the Christian Bible, and many "evangelical" atheists promote Bible reading and study - because once you've read the whole thing with a critical mindset it's impossible to take it seriously.
Wikipedia thinks having diverse contributors helps develop well-written, unbiased comprehensive treatments on various subjects. In this case, the argument goes, topics of typically male interest tend to receive more attention from the larger male contributor base, whereas topics of typical female interest receive less.
Which would be a good reason to recruit women, but I rarely see campaigns to add the views of senior citizens, Mennonites, or third-world people to most websites. Because of that, I suspect that their motivation has more to do with bowing to social pressure and a desire to look good than to actually add diverse viewpoints.
I'm doing this from memory, in a rush, so feel free to correct:
Saying that "it just wasn't funded by government" is actually less accurate than saying "it was banned". Doing embryonic stem cell research (outside of certain preexisting lines) meant that an organization was banned from almost all government funding, even for completely unrelated matters - and the Supreme Court has found that kind of thing to be a punishment. So the research was banned in every relevant sense, it's just that the punishment wasn't a fine or imprisonment but rather ineligibility for funding. And this leaves somewhat dishonest people just enough wiggle room to say that it wasn't really a ban.
If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans, outcompeted the default of "no religion" and has even thrived in the past thousands of years.
Since animals don't use cars, car-use gene must have outcompeted the default "no car" genes? Animals seem just as capable of having the prerequisites of religion - desires (like to live forever) and cognitive biases (like natural phenomena have intention). It's just that without the ability to pass on ideas they can't make a recognizable faith out of it.
most atheists don't appear to have much of an indoctrination, education and conversion plan... So how will the ratios increase?
All you really have to do is make nonbelief socially acceptable, the rest just happens - look at Europe, or America's empty pews.
And many seem to need to feel part of a Greater Thing. Whether it's religion or some "Greener than Thou movement", or a football team, or Star Trek. You take religion away from them, and something else will rush into the hole and look practically the same thing.
People will always find various ways to be stupid, but having an organized majority of a society believe in a single type of stupid from a barbaric age just makes it more damaging. Call me when the Trekkies make "Spock Day" a federal holiday and start government censorship of books that are "too emotional".
Far more people while not being very religious, are not interested in getting rid of religion
That will do - religion can only exist if it's passed on, a few generations of apathy, and we've won.
So if I choose to have a wired landline with no added features and no long-distance service, it'll be like a nickel a month thanks to the power of multiple competing local carriers?
No, most people don't care about that. Without any pressure to keep that price down, there's no reason to lower prices. That's why I said "When it comes to phones, we have collectively chosen to get more rather than spend less." Did I really have to add "Prices for the old services haven't changed much because that's not what customers have asked for."?
Stop trying to fit facts into your ideology like that, you're just hurting them both...
Stop pretending I said something that I didn't say (like competition always lowers prices), straw men are ugly. Also, stop pretending that making a general observation about the economy counts as an "ideology". Just because economics is just another branch of politics to you doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider it one of the softer sciences.
Or better yet, Phone companies! My bill is as low as... Egads! It isn;t. Help!
OMG! Five lines of cell service with text messaging, email and web access, along with touch-screen and mini-keyboard equipped phones that come with everything from a built-in alarm clock to video games costs more than a single land line used to? You don't say!
The whole point of a freedom is that you get to choose. When it comes to phones, we have collectively chosen to get more rather than spend less.
We've left other countries to more or less mind their business since our country's founding.
LOL. For counter-examples, I'd like to cite the entire second half of my American History textbook from high school.
There's hardly anything in the last three big releases that should be news to ANYONE.
Then why is this an issue for you?
If they were really a problem, Obama has an absurdly broad array of options, the most fast-acting of which would be to recognize WIkileaks as a terrorist organization.
Which is why we need wikileaks in the first place.
What ELSE do you call a private group dedicated to breaking laws
What law breaking? Every major news outlet in the US has released classified information, which is legal under US law. Only the people given access to the data are required to keep is secret.
OTOH, Assange is a big enough prick that it looks like all we have to do is wait, and he'll hang himself. (Yes, if you're mid-sex and she says stop, failing to do so *IS RAPE*.)
What are you talking about? The bizarre Swedish "sex crime" of consensual sex without a condom? And even if he did destroy his own rep, what about the other people in the organization?
What's interesting to me is that argument that at a nonzero angle, "of course" this is possible, but not directly downwind.
Er, because they use completely different techniques?
A boat with only a sail uses the difference between the speed of the wind and the vehicle as a source of power - as soon as you reach wind speed, you've removed your own power source.
I note that the blades of the propeller are angled at a nonzero angle -- is this a factor?
No - it makes no difference. As long as the vehicle is approaching wind speed in the direction of the wind, and the blades move forward with the vehicle, there's no speed difference for it to use.
But you can go upwind if you use the right technique (tacking a boat is an example) - but to do this you need a keel (or wheels) that let you push off against another medium. Now you can use the difference in the speed of the air and the speed of the water (or ground), rather than just the difference between your speed and the wind's.
And (here's the trick) it doesn't make a difference if you consider the ground or the air as the thing that's stationary. So when you're stationary relative to the air, you can use the ground rushing past you to "tack" into the onrushing flow of ground that's coming at you by pushing off the "motionless" air. It's tricky, but I hope that got the idea across.
No. Citizens really do have the right to vote, but corporations are, legally speaking, "persons". They have no more right to vote than someone visiting from the UK. In the same vein, they have the same right to free speech and right to make legally-binding contracts that a Brit has.
The Earth's magnetic field will deflect the particles somewhat, but their speed is so high the deflection is not so large as to "stop" the particle.
The magnetic field of the Earth deflects and captures particles... emitted by the Sun (called solar winds). However, the speed of these
fragments is much slower than the speed of cosmic rays.
So your statement that "[the Earth's magnetic field] is what protects us from vasts amounts of cosmic rays" is wrong. Sorry.
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Your original post was: If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
and now you're saying: Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
So either you're claiming that the idea of objective truth and non-hedonistic lifestyles couldn't exist without religion, and that at least on was required for science to develop, or you've moved from an "absolutely impossible without religion" claim to one of "religion helped out". If it's the first, then you need to show some evidence, and all I need to do is list some of the philosophies of Classical Greece. If it's the second, then we aren't really discussing the same subject we were at the start, and I'm willing to just let it drop.
What counts as "substantial"? 1% of use? 5% of use? 25%?
It probably isn't a percentage of use, but rather whether or not there are similar alternatives. The courts have found that people have a fair-use right to time-shift content and there is no other way to do this other than recording it. And you can't take away one person's fair-use right in an effort to protect another person's copyright.
Does it count as a "substantial non-infringing use"? In all probability, no.
Are there any other ways to make DS applications? If not, they at least have an argument. If they had followed the same logic, the right to be an independent developer would outweigh the right to block people from making illegitimate copies.
Please note that I only know the specifics of US law, your kilometerage may vary in the territory of the Queen.
why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal...
Nobody has specifically made R4 cards (or writable DVDs and CDs, or VHS and Betamax tapes) illegal. When home recordings first became possible, movie makers were worried that VCRs would destroy their market, and sued based on the idea that VCR manufacturers were making equipment that was meant to help people make copies infringing on their copyrights, and thus they were liable for part of the damages. Courts have generally found that something "need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses" in order to avoid liability. Apparently this decision was a departure from that.
It would be similar to saying you can't sue a knife maker after getting stabbed because knives have legitimate nonharmful uses, but when I get shot I can get money from the gun manufacturer. Now if legislation was passed specifically banning guns, the legal arguments would be much different.
I would like to know what the legal reasoning is: did the judge find a substantial legal difference between R4s and VHS tapes, or is it based on the fact that R4s are much less likely to be used legitimately, or (most likely) is the judge just not tech-savvy enough to make a good comparison?
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Well, you've gone from "... [science] couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework" and "[external truth, cannons, experts] all come from monotheism" to "religion might have helped science along in some vague ways that can't be verified". I'll just consider your original claims retracted.
One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then.
True, religion played a much more central role in society in the old days. Of course, when societies separate religion from the rest of society, that's when things tend to progress the most. Look at the peak of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and modern Western civilization - they all occurred when religion was less central to public life than normal, either because multiple religions coexisted, or because other institutions became more clearly separate from religious ones.
these all come from monotheism
Well, monotheists like to take credit for them.:)
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
Which would surprise to all of those pagan churches studying astronomy. Plus there's a big difference between searching for the truth and merely defending existing dogma.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Which would surprise all of those Greek and Egyptian authors writing medical texts. Plus having a fixed, unquestionable cannon probably hinders the search for knowledge as much as it helps.
having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students
Which would surprise the ancient Hindus and several of the Oriental cultures. Plus using vetted experts isn't very useful if their purpose is to indoctrinate rather than educate.
>>Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
>Incorrect. This statement is more or less an urban legend generated by the modern atheist movement.
What? The Christian Bible alone has lists of rules about how one should practice slavery, insists upon the death penalty for things we don't even consider crimes anymore, places women in a clearly secondary role in social life, and advocates the idea that moral responsibility can be transmitted from one thing to another (passed down generations, pushed onto a scapegoat). Many times when people fought against slavery, sexism, racism, and tribalism of all sorts they had an additional obstacle to overcome in the form of religious dogma. And that's just stuff that's directly from the holy texts of one religion, leaving out Islam and Confucianism, and all the 'extras' from Christianity, like the divine right of kings, using the threat of excommunication to maintain power, etc.
>>That's just your assertion.
>Backed up by my study of history.
No, it's "backed up" by the narrative that practitioners of your religion have invented in order to make themselves feel good, and uncritically accepting a story that one culture has about its own superiority doesn't count as "study". Since you claim that one idea really was the best, I have to ask exactly what you mean by "Universal Charity", what metric you used to judge its goodness, and what other ideas you have compared it to. Or, much more likely, you've just been told this, and accept it because it makes you feel good.
>Based on your above statement, you've never really made a study of it.
Wow, an insult from a guy on the internet, backed up by nothing at all! My feelings are so hurt!
It doesn't seem to matter if your government suppresses the heretical non-Christians, non-Muslims, non-Atheists, non-Hindus, or non-Pagans - when the government forces a religious viewpoint on people it's all bad.
On the other hand, when people are allowed to practice their various faiths (or none) in peace, it doesn't seem to matter whether it's the Greek Gods (500 BCE Athens), the Muslim God (1000 CE Baghdad), the Christian God (1900 CE West), or no god (2000 CE Sweden) that's popular - things tend to be all right.
So we each have our own beliefs, and can make fun of the other person's, but no matter what just please don't fuck up the only type of society with a proven track record of improving the human condition.
Religion merely [becomes?] a vehicle for our baboon-like behaviors...
Exactly. Religion gives tyrants, in addition to all of the tools that they already have, the threat of eternal damnation, the faux-moral divine right of kings, and a reason for the opressed to ignore their oppression (all will be set right in the afterlife). Think of how much more horrid Stalin an Mao could have been if they had not just modern technology and their own evil intent, but the cloak of religion as well.
I find that atheists are entirely too comfortable in turning religion into a scapegoat
Religion might not be the source of all evil, but it does make an exceptionally good place for evil to hide. Look at the Catholic Church's scandals - just by being priests child molesters could put themselves above suspicion, and if discovered have a whole hierarchy of people ready to hide their crimes. The crimes themselves might have come from human nature, but that good a disguise for it could only come from religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of a broad statement wouldnt you say? Have you ever actually read the bible? It's always intriguing that the harshest, most sarcastic and caustic critics have never actually read it...
Most of the atheists I know have read the Christian Bible, and many "evangelical" atheists promote Bible reading and study - because once you've read the whole thing with a critical mindset it's impossible to take it seriously.
Wikipedia thinks having diverse contributors helps develop well-written, unbiased comprehensive treatments on various subjects. In this case, the argument goes, topics of typically male interest tend to receive more attention from the larger male contributor base, whereas topics of typical female interest receive less.
Which would be a good reason to recruit women, but I rarely see campaigns to add the views of senior citizens, Mennonites, or third-world people to most websites. Because of that, I suspect that their motivation has more to do with bowing to social pressure and a desire to look good than to actually add diverse viewpoints.
I'm doing this from memory, in a rush, so feel free to correct:
Saying that "it just wasn't funded by government" is actually less accurate than saying "it was banned". Doing embryonic stem cell research (outside of certain preexisting lines) meant that an organization was banned from almost all government funding, even for completely unrelated matters - and the Supreme Court has found that kind of thing to be a punishment. So the research was banned in every relevant sense, it's just that the punishment wasn't a fine or imprisonment but rather ineligibility for funding. And this leaves somewhat dishonest people just enough wiggle room to say that it wasn't really a ban.
If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans, outcompeted the default of "no religion" and has even thrived in the past thousands of years.
Since animals don't use cars, car-use gene must have outcompeted the default "no car" genes? Animals seem just as capable of having the prerequisites of religion - desires (like to live forever) and cognitive biases (like natural phenomena have intention). It's just that without the ability to pass on ideas they can't make a recognizable faith out of it.
most atheists don't appear to have much of an indoctrination, education and conversion plan ... So how will the ratios increase?
All you really have to do is make nonbelief socially acceptable, the rest just happens - look at Europe, or America's empty pews.
And many seem to need to feel part of a Greater Thing. Whether it's religion or some "Greener than Thou movement", or a football team, or Star Trek. You take religion away from them, and something else will rush into the hole and look practically the same thing.
People will always find various ways to be stupid, but having an organized majority of a society believe in a single type of stupid from a barbaric age just makes it more damaging. Call me when the Trekkies make "Spock Day" a federal holiday and start government censorship of books that are "too emotional".
Far more people while not being very religious, are not interested in getting rid of religion
That will do - religion can only exist if it's passed on, a few generations of apathy, and we've won.
So if I choose to have a wired landline with no added features and no long-distance service, it'll be like a nickel a month thanks to the power of multiple competing local carriers?
No, most people don't care about that. Without any pressure to keep that price down, there's no reason to lower prices. That's why I said "When it comes to phones, we have collectively chosen to get more rather than spend less." Did I really have to add "Prices for the old services haven't changed much because that's not what customers have asked for."?
Stop trying to fit facts into your ideology like that, you're just hurting them both...
Stop pretending I said something that I didn't say (like competition always lowers prices), straw men are ugly. Also, stop pretending that making a general observation about the economy counts as an "ideology". Just because economics is just another branch of politics to you doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider it one of the softer sciences.
Or better yet, Phone companies! My bill is as low as... Egads! It isn;t. Help!
OMG! Five lines of cell service with text messaging, email and web access, along with touch-screen and mini-keyboard equipped phones that come with everything from a built-in alarm clock to video games costs more than a single land line used to? You don't say!
The whole point of a freedom is that you get to choose. When it comes to phones, we have collectively chosen to get more rather than spend less.
You don't get to chose the line where the pretty girl is doing the checking.
We've left other countries to more or less mind their business since our country's founding.
LOL. For counter-examples, I'd like to cite the entire second half of my American History textbook from high school.
There's hardly anything in the last three big releases that should be news to ANYONE.
Then why is this an issue for you?
If they were really a problem, Obama has an absurdly broad array of options, the most fast-acting of which would be to recognize WIkileaks as a terrorist organization.
Which is why we need wikileaks in the first place.
What ELSE do you call a private group dedicated to breaking laws
What law breaking? Every major news outlet in the US has released classified information, which is legal under US law. Only the people given access to the data are required to keep is secret.
OTOH, Assange is a big enough prick that it looks like all we have to do is wait, and he'll hang himself. (Yes, if you're mid-sex and she says stop, failing to do so *IS RAPE*.)
What are you talking about? The bizarre Swedish "sex crime" of consensual sex without a condom? And even if he did destroy his own rep, what about the other people in the organization?
They can get speed off of cell tower data?
What's interesting to me is that argument that at a nonzero angle, "of course" this is possible, but not directly downwind.
Er, because they use completely different techniques?
A boat with only a sail uses the difference between the speed of the wind and the vehicle as a source of power - as soon as you reach wind speed, you've removed your own power source.
I note that the blades of the propeller are angled at a nonzero angle -- is this a factor?
No - it makes no difference. As long as the vehicle is approaching wind speed in the direction of the wind, and the blades move forward with the vehicle, there's no speed difference for it to use.
But you can go upwind if you use the right technique (tacking a boat is an example) - but to do this you need a keel (or wheels) that let you push off against another medium. Now you can use the difference in the speed of the air and the speed of the water (or ground), rather than just the difference between your speed and the wind's.
And (here's the trick) it doesn't make a difference if you consider the ground or the air as the thing that's stationary. So when you're stationary relative to the air, you can use the ground rushing past you to "tack" into the onrushing flow of ground that's coming at you by pushing off the "motionless" air. It's tricky, but I hope that got the idea across.
No. Citizens really do have the right to vote, but corporations are, legally speaking, "persons". They have no more right to vote than someone visiting from the UK. In the same vein, they have the same right to free speech and right to make legally-binding contracts that a Brit has.
Corporations are not, last I checked, people.
Surprise!
This is what's in my newspaper:
Politician is corrupt!
Priest molested kids!
People celebrate holiday!
Religious people ignore science!
Flood plain gets flooded!
If that counts as news, so does this.
It's "640 kilocents" - ya missed a zero. And really, $640 - did you price hookers before the recession? Talk about getting screwed!
My point was that its a moral/philosophical debate, not a logical one
The fact that you differentiate between the two is the root cause of the problem.
If you upload your mental state to a computer, are you still human?
If you were asking honestly, then I'd just reply "That's the whole point - if you 'aren't you' anymore, then the upload wasn't successful."
The problem is that, for many of us who are used to the concept, it sounds like "if man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings, you should ride the train like God intended", or Leon Kass's argument that extending human life beyond it's natural bounds would mean that we are no longer human.
From your own source:
So your statement that "[the Earth's magnetic field] is what protects us from vasts amounts of cosmic rays" is wrong. Sorry.
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Your original post was:
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
and now you're saying:
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
So either you're claiming that the idea of objective truth and non-hedonistic lifestyles couldn't exist without religion, and that at least on was required for science to develop, or you've moved from an "absolutely impossible without religion" claim to one of "religion helped out". If it's the first, then you need to show some evidence, and all I need to do is list some of the philosophies of Classical Greece. If it's the second, then we aren't really discussing the same subject we were at the start, and I'm willing to just let it drop.
What counts as "substantial"? 1% of use? 5% of use? 25%?
It probably isn't a percentage of use, but rather whether or not there are similar alternatives. The courts have found that people have a fair-use right to time-shift content and there is no other way to do this other than recording it. And you can't take away one person's fair-use right in an effort to protect another person's copyright.
Does it count as a "substantial non-infringing use"? In all probability, no.
Are there any other ways to make DS applications? If not, they at least have an argument. If they had followed the same logic, the right to be an independent developer would outweigh the right to block people from making illegitimate copies.
Please note that I only know the specifics of US law, your kilometerage may vary in the territory of the Queen.
why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal...
Nobody has specifically made R4 cards (or writable DVDs and CDs, or VHS and Betamax tapes) illegal. When home recordings first became possible, movie makers were worried that VCRs would destroy their market, and sued based on the idea that VCR manufacturers were making equipment that was meant to help people make copies infringing on their copyrights, and thus they were liable for part of the damages. Courts have generally found that something "need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses" in order to avoid liability. Apparently this decision was a departure from that.
It would be similar to saying you can't sue a knife maker after getting stabbed because knives have legitimate nonharmful uses, but when I get shot I can get money from the gun manufacturer. Now if legislation was passed specifically banning guns, the legal arguments would be much different.
I would like to know what the legal reasoning is: did the judge find a substantial legal difference between R4s and VHS tapes, or is it based on the fact that R4s are much less likely to be used legitimately, or (most likely) is the judge just not tech-savvy enough to make a good comparison?
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Well, you've gone from "... [science] couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework" and "[external truth, cannons, experts] all come from monotheism" to "religion might have helped science along in some vague ways that can't be verified". I'll just consider your original claims retracted.
One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then.
True, religion played a much more central role in society in the old days. Of course, when societies separate religion from the rest of society, that's when things tend to progress the most. Look at the peak of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and modern Western civilization - they all occurred when religion was less central to public life than normal, either because multiple religions coexisted, or because other institutions became more clearly separate from religious ones.
these all come from monotheism :)
Well, monotheists like to take credit for them.
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
Which would surprise to all of those pagan churches studying astronomy. Plus there's a big difference between searching for the truth and merely defending existing dogma.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Which would surprise all of those Greek and Egyptian authors writing medical texts. Plus having a fixed, unquestionable cannon probably hinders the search for knowledge as much as it helps.
having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students
Which would surprise the ancient Hindus and several of the Oriental cultures. Plus using vetted experts isn't very useful if their purpose is to indoctrinate rather than educate.
>>Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
>Incorrect. This statement is more or less an urban legend generated by the modern atheist movement.
What? The Christian Bible alone has lists of rules about how one should practice slavery, insists upon the death penalty for things we don't even consider crimes anymore, places women in a clearly secondary role in social life, and advocates the idea that moral responsibility can be transmitted from one thing to another (passed down generations, pushed onto a scapegoat). Many times when people fought against slavery, sexism, racism, and tribalism of all sorts they had an additional obstacle to overcome in the form of religious dogma. And that's just stuff that's directly from the holy texts of one religion, leaving out Islam and Confucianism, and all the 'extras' from Christianity, like the divine right of kings, using the threat of excommunication to maintain power, etc.
>>That's just your assertion.
>Backed up by my study of history.
No, it's "backed up" by the narrative that practitioners of your religion have invented in order to make themselves feel good, and uncritically accepting a story that one culture has about its own superiority doesn't count as "study". Since you claim that one idea really was the best, I have to ask exactly what you mean by "Universal Charity", what metric you used to judge its goodness, and what other ideas you have compared it to. Or, much more likely, you've just been told this, and accept it because it makes you feel good.
>Based on your above statement, you've never really made a study of it.
Wow, an insult from a guy on the internet, backed up by nothing at all! My feelings are so hurt!
Would you recommend the Stalin/Mao approach?
No, we have secularism.
It doesn't seem to matter if your government suppresses the heretical non-Christians, non-Muslims, non-Atheists, non-Hindus, or non-Pagans - when the government forces a religious viewpoint on people it's all bad.
On the other hand, when people are allowed to practice their various faiths (or none) in peace, it doesn't seem to matter whether it's the Greek Gods (500 BCE Athens), the Muslim God (1000 CE Baghdad), the Christian God (1900 CE West), or no god (2000 CE Sweden) that's popular - things tend to be all right.
So we each have our own beliefs, and can make fun of the other person's, but no matter what just please don't fuck up the only type of society with a proven track record of improving the human condition.
Who the f* is going to eliminate religion?
We'll just grow out of it. :)
Religion merely [becomes?] a vehicle for our baboon-like behaviors...
Exactly. Religion gives tyrants, in addition to all of the tools that they already have, the threat of eternal damnation, the faux-moral divine right of kings, and a reason for the opressed to ignore their oppression (all will be set right in the afterlife). Think of how much more horrid Stalin an Mao could have been if they had not just modern technology and their own evil intent, but the cloak of religion as well.
I find that atheists are entirely too comfortable in turning religion into a scapegoat
Religion might not be the source of all evil, but it does make an exceptionally good place for evil to hide. Look at the Catholic Church's scandals - just by being priests child molesters could put themselves above suspicion, and if discovered have a whole hierarchy of people ready to hide their crimes. The crimes themselves might have come from human nature, but that good a disguise for it could only come from religion.
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
And I assume you can back up that claim with...?