This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
It's true that we suffer the same faults. But by being a by anthro_domer
religion of one, it's also a lot easier to change. If I realize I'm suffering from arrogance, it's a little easier for me to address that than an organization of millions with all the inertia of 2,000 years.
I think for a lot of people too it comes down to whether they'd rather trust their own instincts and logic or trust (and this is purposely hyperbolic) a bunch of old, white, out-of-touch men that also seemed to condone sexual abuse of children. As I suggested earlier there's certainly a degree of arrogance in that thought (and we as a society have no shortage of arrogance), but I think a lot of people are comfortable saying they can have their own personal relationship with God without the need of some other group telling me what I should or should not believe.
My main point though is to question whether not being a part of organized religion necessarily makes one non-religious. I would posit that a person can still be religious without the organization.