That “shared moral framework” is what terrorists use to justify their acts, what people who kill doctors in women’s health clinics hold up as their moral guidance, and what every act of religious abuse is sanctified by.

I don’t see how that’s a disagreement. There’s no question that sociopathic individuals use power structures, if they can, to advance their sociopathy. They do it with religion, they do it with politics, they do it on Wall Street. They’ve done it since the beginning of time, and religion is especially vulnerable to be used by these freaks because of it’s desire to see people improve morally.

I suppose, if there is a disagreement there, is that you’ve decided that the evil done by a terrorist who then states that he was justified by his religion should be imputed to the entire religion, while I see it as yet another sociopath who used that religion for his own selfish gains, and not a lot different, say, then the CDO speculators that brought down the economy in 2008.

If that person wishes to do bad things, they will find absolute support in the Bibles and the Qurans of the world — in fact, they will now be able to claim to be moral in their acts.

If that’s where they go for justification for those acts, sure. However, evil deeds are done every day, and the vast majority of them do *not* point to any sort of religious justification for them. Therefore, a reasonable person can conclude that a person who wishes to do evil will find whatever justification for it they can find and use it; if it seems convenient to use religion for that justification, they will; failing that, they’ll use some other justification. Evil acts are rarely done by people believing they are doing evil, religious justification or not.

Religion enables and supports self-righteous hatred for others; the only actually moral framework to be found in it is whatever the person reading those books brings with them.

It can indeed, which is why contextual understanding of religious teachings in their historical context is important. When one starts interpreting complex theological teachings without any sense of structure, AND they bring with them some sort of antisocial leanings, it doesn’t end well.

Enlightened self-interest is the only possible positive moral framework there is. Any claim to externally-imposed morality is little more than a pious wish, and has no basis in reality.

Well, that’s a rather minority position as philosophies go. As much as I like Rand, I am not as firmly a Randian as you seem to be. I still think that “Love thy neighbor as thyself” has value as a tool in resolving moral dilemmas.

Um, no. The unsupported opinion/assertion here — that religion provides a moral framework — is yours, and thus yours to prove.

Is it? Hm. Apparently you don’t view, for one example, the Sermon on the Mount as setting up a moral framework. If you don’t, then all we’re going to end up doing is quibbling about what a “moral framework” is. That’s not productive.

For a data scientist — someone who understands the process of supporting an opinion with hard data, and what evidence actually means — you’re making an extremely poor argument, one that you cannot possibly defend.

Science and religion are designed to answer two entirely different types of questions. And the fact that you have discounted my view does not mean it’s “extremely poor”; all that means is that you disagree with it.

this is not simply a question of two opposing opinions, but of one (demonstrably false) opinion and one disagreement with it.

If playing that card makes you sleep well at night, that’s fine. I don’t think you’ll find much popular traction for your theory that religion does not teach morality.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.