Clearly, the Less Wrong community generally (unanimously?) agrees about a lot of major things. For example, religion.
The 2012 survey showed something around 10% non-atheist, non-agnostic.
My point in posting this is simply to ask you—what, in your opinion, are the most legitimate criticisms of your own way of thinking?
From most plausible to least plausible:
It's possible to formulate something like an argument that religious practice is good for neurotypical humans, in terms of increasing life expectancy, reducing stress, and so on.
Monocultures tend to do better than populations with mixed cultural heritage, and one could argue that some religions do very well at creating monocultures where none previously existed, e.g., the mormons, or perhaps the Catholic Church circa 1800 in the states.
I've heard some reports that religious affiliation is good for one's dating pool.
See, but these are only arguments that religion is useful. Rationalists on this site say that religion is most definitely false, even if it's useful; are there any rational thinkers out there who actually think that religion could realistically be true? I think that's a much harder question that whether or not it's good for us.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.