Disclaimer: I may not be the right person to be joining this discussion, as a never-religious atheist, but I think your point 1 is understating the problem. Religion (and I’m mostly thinking of Christianity here, but I think the same applies to Islam and Judaism) doesn’t just make ”straightforwardly false” claims. The claim “ivermectin is a wonder drug that cures 100% of Covid” is straightforwardly false and potentially harmful but doesn’t generate the same reaction. Religion demands thought patterns which systematically undermine your ability to tell true from false. 

Examples:

   You must have faith. Faith is praiseworthy, doubting is wrong / sinful. Requiring evidence for your beliefs is therefore wrong.

   Questioning what you are taught by (religious) authority figures is sinful.

   If the (holy) text doesn’t make sense or is outright self-contradictory, you should rationalise the problems and teach yourself to ignore any evidence that the text is not perfect.

Training yourself to apply these degraded thought-patterns undermines your entire epistemics and is consequently very difficult to self-correct. That is far more harmful than embracing any individual object-level false belief.

It seems like the kind of religion you support is one where you're not required to believe untrue things but do have rituals and community. I was under the impression that that is popular here. The talk about Solstices and Petrov Day is the most obvious parts (along with meetups). I feel like there are discussions about religious people and people with kids being happier either here or in LessWrong-adjacent places. At one point there was a lot of discussion of spirituality (although I haven't seen it for a while, but I don't think it was downvoted).

Maybe you could be more specific aboot what aspects of religion you're getting pushback about.

For me it's Objection1, but just as importantly it's that religions (in particular Abrahamic ones) tend to entrench and enforce morally abhorrent precepts. (E.g. from Christianity we have things like: sinners should suffer infinite torture, subjugation of women, original sin, blasphemy, "all desires are inherently bad/sinful", "being a good person has nothing to do with what you do" etc...). I have a prior that people who are attracted to religion tend to be either willfully blind to or supportive of such evils, which perhaps looks like Objection 2 from the outside. That said, I do think many of the things you bring up are in fact good things about religion. I'm pessimistic but not opposed to attempts to distill these good aspects into something fully good.

Speaking from my own personal history with religion, the thing I objected to was not actually religion in general, but Protestant Christianity and specifically its attempt to control beliefs and thoughts.

It took a while though to figure out this was not a general religion thing and that most religions actually don't care that much if you disagree with their myths, stories, explanations, etc. and instead focus on what you do. As best I can tell, in most religions the expectation is that the thing that comes first and that most people will do is carry out certain behaviors, whether they be rituals or observed practices. Personally, I don't chafe against this much, since it's not too much different from the non-religious expectations of behavior as part of my culture. I know some people dislike this a lot and it's a different reason to reject religion than the one I'm pointing at.

So, back to Protestant Christianity. There's this big focus on faith and belief. There's an insistence that you must think the right thoughts to be in God's good graces and thus for good stuff to happen to you. If you grow up in an environment that treats this collection of beliefs about God having power in the world to affect things, and especially if you're scrupulous, then this can be quite painful when you notice that some of the things you're being asked to believe don't match what you observe. Some people lean into the conflict as a test of faith; I leaned into the conflict as a test of my skill as a proto-rationalist.

Given that LW's audience is largely seeded with culturally Anglo people, and culture that is predominantly Protestant Christian, I then propose that a decent about of the aversion to religion comes from a similar story to my own: people grew up with religion (which, again, meant Protestant Christianity) trying to control their thoughts and convince them to believe things that didn't match their observations, they rejected that, and because there was social pressure to conform found themselves not just opting out of but forced to stand in opposition to religion in order to navigate their local social circumstances. Eventually this gets internalized as an aversion.

Everyone can have a different reason. For me, the main objection is that religion plays a form of epistemic "pigeon chess" -- that it joyfully throws out of the window all sanity, and instead promotes an epistemic norm: "if you don't believe this memeplex, you will be horribly tortured -- and this is supremely good thing (and if you disagree that this is a supremely good thing, you will be horribly tortured, too, mwahahaha!)".

From my perspective, anyone who threatens other people with torture, should be kicked in the balls, repeatedly. Like, the moment you seriously started threatening me with torture, this stopped being a civil discussion, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Your imaginary god who enjoys torturing people is a sick psycho. If it was someone else's god, torturing people for not joining someone else's religion, I assume it would be quite obvious to you, too.

(EDIT: here, "you" refers to a general hypothetical religious audience, not OP specifically)

After epistemology, the next thing the religion throws in the toilet is morality. Because, in order to avoid being horribly tortured yourself, you better start believing that torturing people who follow the normal rules of evidence is a good thing. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, one of the greatest joys of people in heaven will be eating popcorn while watching sinners (e.g. people who masturbated at some moment of their lives) tortured in hell. Do you realize that in the unlikely case you get in heaven, most of your friends and relatives will be in hell? Are you seriously looking forward to watching them suffer, forever, while singing praise to your mad god? You better sing loud and sincerely, because he can read your thoughts, and he certainly does not like criticism.

...now of course, most religious people would object strongly against this description. But that's kinda my point: if you believe stupid and evil shit, why look for excuses, when you could simply stop believing it instead? Ah, because in the infinitesimal chance that you were wrong and the religion was somehow right after all, you will get horribly tortured for your lack of faith. No shit Pascal, shut up and multiply.

So, to address your questions: (1) yes, religion is false, and (2) yes, it makes people say stupid things. But the actually horrible thing is the mechanism it uses to make people say and believe stupid things (the threat of torture for those who want to consider the evidence instead of blindly believing). Saying "religion is false" is just the tip of the iceberg. Many things are false, without being promoted under threat of torture, with sick morality saying that threatening people (including small kids) by torture to make them believe absurdities is a good thing.

Many religions claim that such things as courage, honesty, and hard work are virtues.

Also: killing strangers, killing skeptics, killing witches. Arguably, those are folk values, too.

I suspect that religion (especially, communally practiced religion) makes it easier for people to create stable marriages and to raise children by providing shared maps of how to do this together. I suspect it also encourages more people to want these things by providing a more accurate map of their value, and a more accurate map of what kind of thing we humans are, such that we value children. (Again, providing accurate maps matters most for young people.)

Whoa, that was an interesting jump from "shared maps", through maps more accurate in one specific thing (a broken clock is also right twice a day), to generally "accurate maps". The religion is right about the fact that some people want to have kids -- awesome! But what about the remaining 99% of the holy books?

Many scientistic materialists seem in my experience to have difficulty finding anything to care about

I am not very confident here, but it seems to me that this is mostly a function of having an active social life. (That is, if you controlled for social activity, would the materialists differ from the religious meaningfully? I suspect no; but I am not sure.) Yes, religion forces you to participate in certain social activities, which are on average good for you. An atheist totalitarian regime can do the same. In theory, you could also organize voluntary social activities for people... but this somehow doesn't seem to work well in practice... perhaps because the people who are most likely to get depressed when they stay alone are also the ones most likely to opt out of voluntary activities? Or maybe it's some kind of paradox of choice, that if you have many activities to choose from, none of them seems clearly best, so you choose none? Also, the more choices, the less likely you are to choose the same thing as your neighbors.

But this is unrelated to accuracy. Reading horoscopes together can be a fun social activity, too.

The two objections in the post basically miss what I'd consider the "core problem" with religion. It's not that religion explicitly promotes false things, so much as that religion centers around symbols which are basically-decoupled from semantic truth.

This does not necessarily imply an "aversion" to religion, but it does mean that one needs to go into basically-every religious context with the assumption that the literal semantic content of any words/symbols are basically decoupled from truth. There may be useful things to find, true things to find, but they won't just be the literal semantic content. (To be clear, this does not mean the literal semantic content is always false - that would be just as useful as content which is always true! It means that the truth-value of the literal semantic content is random noise.) The core question to ask is basically-never "is this religious claim true?", but rather "what does it tell us about the world, that this religion promotes this claim?".

(Note that all of the examples in the OP are basically compatible with this - none of them are about the truth of the literal semantic content of an explicit religious claim.)

(Also note that the same problem applies to a lot of nominally-scientific research and basically-all politics; it's not exclusive to religion.)

(One specific frame which makes this explicit, mainly applicable to Western religion: Western religion is almost-exclusively a simulacrum level 3-or-4 [? · GW] phenomenon.)

Personally, it's not religion I object to per se. Rather, it's dogma, which is a much larger phenomenon and includes such things as political affiliation, uncritical beliefs in the current state of science, etc. Thing is, there is a huge overlap to the point where religion sometimes appears to be subset of dogma. It isn't really, but it takes a surprising amount of work to find religion outside this Venn diagram.

One explanation why you would not find religion discussed much on Lesswrong: The sequences are definitely anti-religion in a lot of places, so this might filter out people who are good at epistemology all else being equal, but feel insulted by Eliziers writing. Someone wanting to discuss religion on LessWrong is therefore probably a strong signal for someone clueless who "doesn't get it". So discussing religion here is low status.

I wouldn't say I have an aversion to religion.  I mean, it's mostly bullshit, but it's probably better than a lot of less-evolved-and-durable common bullshit.   I also wouldn't say that I represent LW in any way - you might need to seek out individuals on LW to ask this question, rather than treating us an an undifferentiated group.

I DO have an aversion to some common aspects of religious arguments, and I don't know if they apply to you.  Sometimes they can be anti-epistemic, and forcefully deny that some aspects of one's lived experience can be analyzed logically.  And, of course, there's no disagreeing on such things, as logic is explicitly excluded.

I don't see much reason to give any weight to what seems to be your main point

I suspect religion offers a more accurate map of the sense in which we are and are not isolated individuals, and of what matters to us deep down, and of at least some parts of how to live and orient 

This seems to me to be a category error in use of the phrase "accurate map".  I grant that for many, religion can offer a psychologically more compelling and comforting frame for the universe.  I don't grant that it's more accurate or predicts future experiences better.

As others sort-of said, there is the religion as ideology, and religion as communal practice. The former is what the most objections are against, the latter is what many people here are actually trying to recreate, without any religious overtones (like the annual Winter Solstice thing). People are extremely vulnerable to ideological hacking, and frowning upon overtly political and overtly religious advocacy helps somewhat to guard against the two most common attack vectors. 

That said, there is definitely a cultish feeling that this site gives to the outsiders, with a cluster of beliefs that one might consider religion-like. I am not saying they are necessarily inaccurate, but that they are out there enough, that doubting them explicitly here is likely to elicit a strong and negative reaction. This is not unexpected, and there is a friendly push back against it, by those who prefer to call themselves "post-rationalists". But that's another story.

I don't think aversion to religion is a good way to summarize the LessWrong discourse around religion. Rationalists generally have complex intellectual positions. 

(1) Beyond the Reach of God [LW · GW] lays out Eliezers positions from more than a decade ago. One of the points it makes is that most conceptions of religion suggest that we don't live in a world that just gets wiped out by an x-risk for no good reason and that this would be bad.

If you look at some conceptions of Buddism it might be seen as good to wipe out all sentient life from the earth through a big asteroid because that would end the wheel of suffering. If you believe in Christianity, then a god that created the earth with a purpose wouldn't allow humanity just to be randomly wiped out.

Even if you grant that religion is compatible with living a normal life, in many forms, it's unhelpful for thinking straight about x-risk. 

(2) More recently you had a conflict around spiritual practice where some argue that a significant portion of community members who engaged in a lot of spiritual practice ended up epistemically worse. I don't think it's accurate to describe LessWrong as being united in that aspect.

While that debate is related there are a lot of different things going on and it's not a purely intellectual debate but one that's about empiric reality of what happened with people after they engaged in certain practices. 

I have not really encountered the word "scientistic" a lot. To me there is a big difference between "scientific" and "scientism" and we are dealing here at a level where such kind of distinctions are crucial. Science as a antonym for religion is already kind of weird.

Religions might come with a clear tradition lines but it can be quite nebolous to map what the corresponding things are for areligious people.

Who are you arguing against?

Several of the comments have pointed out positive attitudes on LW to the things you say are positive results of religion, negative attitudes to the things you say are negative results of religion, and negative attitudes to LW-adjacent weirdness of the same sort. You say you are a long-time LW-er, yet you seem not to have noticed any of these things go by.

Religion is a very old and powerful memeplex. It has successfully established itself as a special case in epistemology, ethics, legal and social systems. Religion uses its exceptional status to spreads literally wrong beliefs, anti-epistemical thought patterns, bad cultural norms and outdated philosophical ideas. You can threat it as a cognitive fallacy if you want: your mind is more likely to accept terrible ideas if they are part of a religion, so be extra careful when dealing with religions. In this way a sense of aversion towards everything religious can be viewed as a protective mechanism, created in order to counter-balance this fallacy.

It doesn't mean that you should restrict you from ever hearing religious perspectives as some kind of info-hazard. Personally I think, that a better mechanism is to ensure that you treat religious ideas just as any others. Consider your arguments about the advantages of religion. Let's reframe them as a general argument in favour of conservatism instead. 

People have been practising some cultural norms for a long time. They are accustomed to them and whatever disadvantages there are, they are well understood.  Is it, therefore, a good idea to keep practising them indefinetely? Obviously it depends on the merits of these norms and how our society change. Maybe some norms made sense then, but do not now. Maybe some norms have a reasonable part, which can be separated from a useless and/or harmful ones.  Maybe some norms were terrible to begin with and we can get rid of them without any disadvantages. We wouldn't find it out, unless we investigate. And while it's wise to be carefull with addopting new approaches, we still should try new things if we want to progress as a species.

Do you notice that reframing an argument in favour of religious cultural norms as generic concervative argument makes it less persuasive? No more we intuitively assume that we are dealing with something inherently meaningful and necessary for our own spiritual health. At least we are more open to the possibilities that changes can be beneficial. We are less susceptible to the halo effect of the religion.
 

I think it's a very interesting and even useful question to raise. Like some have pointed out I suspect that the issues are not just limited to religion so any models could be applied much more broadly and should be.

I don't know if I would suggest either of the two thoughts I'll offer below should be considered major elements of some model here but I think they probably fit in to such a model. Easy one first.

1. Discussions about religion have a tendency to run similar line as those of politics. Politics is another subject area that the culture here stays away from (discourages even). 
2. I'll steal from JSW here: 'The core question to ask is basically-never "is this religious claim true?", but rather "what does it tell us about the world, that this religion promotes this claim?".' But I think the rub here is that "the world" is actually defined differently in religious inquire than is true in the physical sciences, or even the softer sciences. I suspect there is some colorblindness/blind spot problems here that then start producing the problems 1 above seeks to avoid having aired out in the discussions here.

Why does objection 1 seem valid to you? Something like "Jesus rose from the dead" is not obviously false; it is in fact true and has good evidence of being true.

"Many religions claim things that are straightforwardly false (e.g., “Jesus physically rose from the dead.”)"

False with what probability?