The Epicurus quote mentioned earlier I was taught in connection with Mackie's inconsistent Triad, which I think I've mentioned here before.
The combination of any two attributes cancels the third.
a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner
I would question that.
Marx called religion "the opium of the people." What we have is an urge to know, not an urge to worship. We want to know things, and in a society where knowledge was scanty, we went to those boys that were saying they knew all the answers. They often also had daring new forms of dress
. It's also a social thing with friends, assures you your life isn't worthless, and tells you "hush, everything will be okay." It's no wonder people wanted to believe them. An urge? Not in its own right, I believe. More just a form of fulfilling a variety of other urges, but knowing the actual answers/having other sources of assurance or comfort would serve just as well.
I would also state that I have absolutely no urge to prostrate myself in front of a deity, so would you suggest that I lack a certain natural urge? Believing for societal reasons is a terrible way of spreading a lie possibly damaging to society.
b) that religion, when applied the right way, is a very useful tool to bring people together, especially in increasingly individualist times such as our own,
And in most cases, as religion is never applied the right way, it leads to conflict, violence, hatred. The purpose of uniting people is a noble one, but it has limited successes, causes more divisions than there are countries, and ultimately (given the number of different religions out there, all claiming to be the only true one) at the very least you believe all of them bar one are wrong-in other words, it's a falsehood. Fine if people like it, but I've never liked being led by the nose, nor do I ever anticipate that I will.
that the particular religion of an area or of a people is a tradition that should be upheld like any tradition that does not harm people
I completely agree, as long as there is an "opt-out" option.
that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.
*Snorts in a mixture of exasperation and surprise*
If you're not joking (which I assume you're not?) then you're saying the same thing every other religion would say. Protestants: Filthy Catholics! Corrupted Bishops raising a Pope for corrupt reasons, a source of much death, fanaticism, out-right superstition (the non-biblical kind) and general greed. Unites people? Sure, as long as they're not
those people. And have you heard of all the coverups? All the children raped by "holy" men, then the "holy" men moved, and it all hushed over?
Truly, the Catholic church cannot control its "crazies." The fact is, Helgo, the crazies are always going to be there. A central Catholic hierarchy only means they're less likely to be brought to notice, and a more diverse, localised hierarchy would be more likely to pick up on it. But they're always there.
---
a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner
I would question that.
yea I thought there was a god spot but maybe there isn't, after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html
Well, in that case, no one has a good excuse anymore.
Whadda bout
Persinger's God Helmet Experiment. Doesn't sure religion as an urge, only shows that what seems to be a religious experience actually isn't.