I’ve expressed the view on other topics that statements are being made here that are not supported by the facts. Most of them are unjustifiably categorical. So the question proposed is an important one.
Please note first that I think it’s important to qualify the scope of the critique, thus the phrase “theistic religion.” I would also include any religion that proposes an external source for human values and ethics.
Let’s focus on what seems to be main concern here, among our members: the many abuses fostered by such things as belief in a god and reliance on “scripture.” We can make a categorical statement about that: to the extent that people draw their values or their ethical practices from either of those sources, or any other external source, they set up an inherent conflict between their religion and meaningful human values. The reason is simple: they’ve severed values and ethics from their roots in human concerns.
However, just because they’ve set up a conflict doesn’t mean that they haven’t found ways to address that conflict in ways that put human interests first. As Thornton Wilder observed, wherever human beings are concerned, there are layers and layers of nonsense. People resolve conflicts every day, picking and choosing what matters most to them, often intuitively or on the fly, occasionally on the basis of a carefully constructed and lived philosophy. The problem with theism in this regard is that it sets up an unnecessary and self-created conflict. That is the categorical statement we can support against theistic religion. Perhaps there are others that fall outside those parameters. I can’t think of any at the moment.