>Most of the good points you make are a two-edged sword. I'll intersperse my comments.
>
>>I think the whole "is it true" question is really not as important as I've made it out to be. The supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false if you ask me – HOWEVER religions still have some very important things to teach. Rather than mocking religions (which I admit I do a bit too much when even slightly provoked), I should point out that I think well-rounded agnostics (such as myself) and atheists can still learn from them – because they're packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies. For example:
>>- build a sense of community
>
>Yes, as long as it's a homogeneous community of members only. They have invented the words "excommunicate", "anathema", "heresy".
>
>>- make our relationships last
>
>Also by force, and by monopolizing marriage (which they gave up only after a long struggle, still unfinished). And there's also the insertion into every important event of our lives - at birth, marriage, death, they have to be there and do a checklist on you. Also, insertion into so much of language, that many phrases don't even have a non-religious version.
>
>>- overcome feelings of envy and inadequacy
>
>But also teaching that if you're poor, it's your fault, the system is fine.
>
>>- escape the twenty-four hour media
>>- go travelling
>
>I do that without them :).
>
>>- get more out of art, architecture and music
>
>Aaaach, several things here. For one, they invented the concept of art as servant of "higher" causes, under dictate, ad maiorem gloriam, which was then taken over by pretty much every propaganda machinery, including just about every campaign today (political or commercial). OTOH, the money they invested in art was at times the only such money, which made important pieces of art possible, and some artists survive.
>
>>- and create new businesses designed to address our emotional needs.
>
>And also taught the state's services, and many other organizations, how to use these for indoctrination of members.
>
>nb. Part of this rant comes from my actually listening, for once, to what the priest was chanting at the last post-funeral ceremony I attended. About 90% of it was self-advertising (the god, the church, the faith), 10% irrelevant and 0% actually had anything to do with the deceased.

My last few church attendances have been funerals and they have done nothing to kindle any religious feeling.
I especially disliked my uncles funeral where I was told by the priest that his suffering would have atoned for his sins. My uncle was a mild mannered man who certainly had done nothing to warrant several years dying of cancer in a hospice.
And my mothers where on meeting the priest I just had that deep feeling (that we all get from time to time) that he was a "wrong un". I think he tried to sell off some papal visit tickets during his service.